Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2017, 01:46:58 AM

Login with username, password and session length

  • Total Members: 31667
  • Latest: Kaz86
  • Total Posts: 721008
  • Total Topics: 58485
  • Online Today: 284
  • Online Ever: 1421
  • (August 13, 2016, 05:18:44 AM)
Users Online
Users: 3
Guests: 274
Total: 277


Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?  (Read 1999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 13,367
  • red pill? or blue pill?
2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« on: October 25, 2008, 09:34:08 PM »
Last one I'll post - if you like em, i'll post some more... Happy debate.

Freddy is 24 and built like a brick house, a total bomb, with bull balls and hung big to boot.  He works for his cousin in construction and is "bi"  curious.

Phil is 40 yo accountaint, shy, only had one bf in his 20’s.  He dresses like a young man on the weekends and he likes younger guys, and can be submissive.

Phil and Freddy chat on Gaydar and decide to meet.  Freddy promises to be rough top. They both marked "Safersex rules" on their bio pages.  Freddy comes over, and Phil is so excited, can’t believe his luck to have this sex bomb in his living room. Freddy goes directly to the point and excites Phil like no tomorrow.  After some rough foreplay and sucking, Freddy orders Phil onto all 4 and enters fast, no condom.  Phil objects after a thrust or two, and Freddy the stud puts on a rubber.  Fucks him good for about 15 minutes. Freddy pulls out, pulls off the condom, and then face-fucks phil against the wall. 

Phil is beside himself with excitement.  Freddy talks dirty and gets Phil excited about shooting into his open mouth.  Slaps his face, spits on him, etc. etc.  He whirls Phil around and says he needs some more butt before he shoots. He screws Phil 10 minutes without a condom, then pulls out and shoots his sperm on Phils face and mouth. 

Within 30 seconds. Freddy puls on his sweat pants and leaves.   Phil has his doubts about his choices but brushes them off and remembers the hot fuck.

A week later, Phil is in a bar with one of his younger bar friends who tells him Freddy is HIV+.  Assures im Freddy is HIV+.  (In fact, narrator’s note, Freddy is HIV+ but on HAART and undetectable since over a year.  His current girlfriend does not know, and he has unprotected oral sex with her, but uses a condom so she doesnt get pregnant.)

Phil is really worried.  Much too late for PEP.  Phil calls the police because he thinks in his state non disclosure is a crime, with or without transmission.  (Idaho)

The police step in to investigate.  Phil and Freddy get lawyers but obviously don’t get much information easily from the other camp.  Freddy tests at one month and is negative but hes still worried, and still continuing to work with his lawyer to pursue the case. He learns that Freddy is on HAART and nondetectable, but Phil is still piping mad and wants to pursue the criminal case to the bitter end, and make Freddy pay for his own mental sufferring and maybe stop Freddy from taking such risks.  At three months Phil is still HIV neg.

What are your opinions about Freddy and Phil ?

1) Does Phil have a moral right to pursue Freddy, since he does have a legal right?  For tort.
2) Does Freddy have some defense, since his doc says he is "nondetectable" and since he did not get sperme in Phils butt.

Idaho Code § 39-601   Not Specified   It is unlawful for anyone infected with HIV to knowingly expose another person to HIV infection.

Idaho Code § 39-608   Felony (punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a period not to exceed 15 years, by a fine not in excess of $5000, or both)   Any person who exposes another in any manner with the intent to infect or, knowing that he or she has HIV, transfers or attempts to transfer any of his or her body fluid, tissue or organs to another person is guilty of a felony. It is an affirmative defense that the sexual activity took place between consenting adults after full disclosure by the accused of the risk of HIV transmission. It is also an affirmative defense that the transfer of body fluid, tissue or organs occurred after advice from a licensed physician that the accused was noninfectious. ("Body fluid" means semen, blood, saliva, vaginal secretion, breast milk, and urine. "Transfer" means engaging in sexual activity by genital-genital contact, oral-genital contact, anal-genital contact; or permitting the use of an unsterilized hypodermic syringe, needle, or similar device; or giving blood, semen, body tissue, or organs for purposes of transfer to another person.)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 10:38:07 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,860
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2008, 09:52:32 PM »

   Are you getting these stories from those Harlequin novels?
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline HereIAm

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2008, 09:57:59 PM »
OK, so, I am wondering...

These stories.  What are they about?  I mean, I think they are about who is morally responsible?  The laws clearly speak for themselves.  In fact, the Idaho law seems pretty tough.

But, do you really want to talk about the law?  Which, is pretty cut and dried.  Or do you mean to talk about peoples' views on this disclosure?

I am not sure the blame game here of who is responsible is helpful.  I think HIV+ folks should disclose.  I also think that it is essential for each of us, regardless of status, to take responsibility for our own health and well being.
Tested Positive 10 Sept 2008.
24 Sept 2008:  CD 4: 23;   1%;  VL: 770,709
1st Oct 2008:  Started Atripla
4 Dec 2008:  CD 4: 145; 8%, VL: 209
1 March 2009:  CD 4: 91; 8%, VL: 49 (undet)
1 June 2009:  CD 4: 164; 11%, VL: 61
8 July 2011:  CD 4: 286; 17%, VL Undet
28 Oct 2011: CD 4: 346; 21%, VL Undet
2 Mar 2012: CD 4: 316; 20%, VL 6800 (probably an error)
12 Apr 2012: CD 4: 333; 21%, VL Undet

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,643
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2008, 10:14:27 PM »
Who's responsible for what?  Much of the information in the "cases" you are detailing here are irrelevant ("bull balls" "rough top" "face fucks").  I feel like I'm reading a porno story.

What's your motivation here?  What do you hope to learn from people's opinions on this?  Is this all just for the sake of discussion?

I just don't understand the purpose of this thread.  But my intuition tells me there is an ulterior motive.



"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 13,367
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2008, 10:32:25 PM »
I just don't understand the purpose of this thread.  But my intuition tells me there is an ulterior motive.
I dont have "ulterior motive". You point is well taken about the porno bits, I'll edit them out!  Back in a second with my own opinion....
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 13,367
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2008, 10:44:13 PM »
Ok I made the post more clear and less graphic.
SOmeone can move it to Offtopic if it seems misplaced here.

My opinion is that discussions about morals cannot really be general. They rather have to fit the circumstances.  I would say, even in this case, the HIV+ guy was acting immorally, but perhaps not illegally. (The law is inconsistent.)
I would say, when we engage in debates about such circumstances, we have to take into consideration both the specific laws of the locale and the intent of the actors in the situation.  Its makes it very very difficult to have generalisable opinions.

But I would be curious to see if fellow forum members moved to post can stick to one situation and work it out for its different moral and legal ramifications.

There is nothing ulterior or cynical about my post, therefore.  Simple curiousity.

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,174
  • AM member since 2003
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2008, 10:45:02 PM »

I really don't see the need for this thread, we already have two threads going in regards to this subject, and please keep in mind there are a lot of young people who come to this site for information and read these forums..the laugauge was really over the top, I don't think this thread is going to get any kind of message across or do any good.

Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2008, 04:03:44 AM »
Bull Balls?

I think I had some fried ones in Colorado once.

Mostly, I tasted the batter and sauce.

And yeah, I get the point of these threads.

Thanks for the revelations. So noted.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,138
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2008, 07:29:43 AM »
Mecch, I get the feeling you just wanted an excuse to talk dirty. ::)
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,785
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2008, 12:56:09 PM »
After reading this, if the "porno bits" were edited out, I would've hate to have read it before.  Geesh.  And I am not so vain to think I can correct people on their own opinions, no matter what the circumstances of the thread(s).
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Condom and Lube Info http://www.aidsmap.com/Condoms/page/1044833/
Please check out our lessons on PEP and PrEP. http://www.poz.com/factsheets/fs_2014_09_prep.pdf


Offline Joe K

  • Standard
  • Member
  • Posts: 5,820
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: 2nd Hypothetical - Who is Responsible?
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2008, 01:19:02 PM »
I am sorry, but this thread means absolutely nothing.  You claim, you want to discuss the moral and legal ramifications, of your characters, when you cannot know either the moral or legal inclinations, of either of the parties.  You are supplying one dimensional characters and insisting that we see them as real, and within just a few paragraphs, we have enough information, to comment on their intent?  Not to mention, you slant your story in many ways, which distorts our supposed perceptions of these flat characters.

If you want to discuss legal issues, then fine.  But how can you discuss morals, given the above story?  We cannot know, for sure, what lies in the heart or mind of another, whether in a post, or in real life.  And what we may see as a moral issue, another may see as responsibility, or whatever.  I just do not see, any real facts, which we could discuss, or I should say, that we would choose to discuss.


Terms of Membership for these forums

© 2017 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.