Sex, Lies and HIV
-
Sex, Lies and HIV: When What You Don’t Tell Your Partner Is a Crime
Source: HIVPlusMag
Laws that criminalize HIV in this country are so askew, one man got a 25-year prison sentence after having sex using a condom, another when his viral load was undetectible; both had close to zero chance of passing HIV, but that's not really what these outdated laws punish. They punish people who are HIV-positive for having sex without disclosing, even if they have no chance of infecting another person.BY Sergio Hernandez ProPublica March 26 2014 2:00 AM ET
Nick Rhoades was clerking at a Family Video store in Waverly, Iowa, one summer afternoon in 2008 when three armed detectives appeared, escorted him to a local hospital and ordered nurses to draw his blood. A dozen miles away, his mother and stepfather looked on as local sheriff’s deputies searched their home for drugs — not illegal drugs, but lifesaving prescription medications.
Lab results and a bottle of pills found in the Rhoades’ refrigerator confirmed the detectives’ suspicions: Nick Rhoades was HIV-positive.
Almost a year later, in a Black Hawk County courtroom, Judge Bradley Harris peered down at Rhoades from his bench.
“One thing that makes this case difficult is you don’t look like our usual criminals,” Harris said. “Often times for the court it is easy to tell when someone is dangerous. They pull the gun. They have done an armed robbery. But you created a situation that was just as dangerous as anyone who did that.”
The judge meted out Rhoades’ sentence: 25 years in prison.
His crime: having sex without first disclosing he had HIV.
Officially, the charge, buried in Chapter 709 of the Iowa code, is “criminal transmission of HIV.” But no transmission had occurred. The man Rhoades had sex with, 22-year-old Adam Plendl, had not contracted the virus.
That’s not a surprise, because Rhoades used a condom.
And medical records show he was taking antiviral drugs that suppressed his HIV, making transmission extremely unlikely. A national group of AIDS public health officials later submitted a brief estimating that the odds of Rhoades infecting Plendl were “likely zero or near zero.”
After his lawyers petitioned the court, Rhoades’ prison sentence was changed to five years’ probation. But for the rest of his life — he is 39 — he will remain registered as an aggravated sex offender who cannot be alone with anyone under the age of 14, not even his nieces and nephews.
Rhoades’ is not an isolated case. Over the last decade, there have been at least 541 cases in which people were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, criminal charges for not disclosing that they were HIV-positive, according to a ProPublica analysis of records from 19 states. The national tally is surely higher, because at least 35 states have laws that specifically criminalize exposing another person to HIV. In 29 states, it is a felony. None of the laws require transmission to occur.
Defendants in these cases were often sentenced to years — sometimes decades — in prison, even when they used a condom or took other precautions against infecting their partners. In 60 cases for which extensive documentation could be obtained, ProPublica found just four involving complainants who actually became infected with HIV. Even in such cases, it can be hard to prove who transmitted the virus without genetic tests matching the accused’s HIV strain to their accuser’s.
People with HIV have even done time for spitting, scratching, or biting. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spitting and scratching cannot transmit HIV, and transmission through biting “is very rare and involves very specific circumstances” — namely, “severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood.”
Many law enforcement officials and legislators defend these laws, saying they deter people from spreading the virus and set a standard for disclosure and precautions in an ongoing epidemic.
“Shifting the burden of HIV disclosure from the infected person, who is aware of a known danger, to one who is completely unaware of their partner’s condition smacks of a ‘blame the victim’ sort of mentality,” Jerry Vander Sanden, a prosecutor in Linn County, Iowa, wrote in an email to ProPublica. “It would be like telling a rape victim that they should have been more careful.”
Even many people with HIV support the laws. In a recent survey of HIV-positive people in New Jersey, 90 percent said that people with the virus bore most of the responsibility to protect their partners. More than half approved of the kind of laws that resulted in Rhoades’ sentence.
But some health and legal experts say using criminal penalties to curtail the epidemic could backfire and fuel the spread of HIV. According to the CDC, 1.1 million Americans are currently living with HIV, but one-fifth of them don’t know it. And studies show that about half of newly infected people got the virus from those who didn’t know they had HIV. So relying on a partner to know, let alone disclose, their HIV status is a risky proposition.
The laws, these experts say, could exacerbate this problem: If people can be imprisoned for knowingly exposing others to HIV, their best defense may be ignorance. Such laws, then, provide a powerful disincentive for citizens to get tested and learn if they carry the virus.
The laws “place all of the responsibility on one party: the party that’s HIV-positive,” said Scott Schoettes, a lawyer who supervises HIV litigation for Lambda Legal, a national gay-rights advocacy group. “And they lull people who are not HIV-positive — or at least think they are not HIV-positive — into believing that they don’t have to do anything. They can just wait for their partner to reveal their status and not, instead, take steps to protect themselves.”
Schoettes also says that the laws unfairly single out HIV, further stigmatizing and reinforcing misconceptions about living with the virus.
“There’s no reason why we should be singling out HIV for this kind of treatment,” he said. “It’s based in just a lot of fear and misconception.”
Being HIV-positive can still carry a powerful stigma. Since July 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice has opened at least 49 investigations into alleged HIV discrimination. The department has won settlements from state prisons, medical clinics, schools, funeral homes, insurance companies, day care centers and even alcohol rehab centers for discriminating against HIV-positive people. Individuals with HIV may also fear that news of their status will spread to third parties, leading to rejection, embarrassment, or ostracism for themselves or even their loved ones.
In September, a disability rights group accused the Pea Ridge, Ark., school district of kicking out three siblings after officials learned that members of their family had HIV. The family’s lawyers declined to comment. The school district did not respond to requests for interviews but issued a statement acknowledging that it had “required some students to provide test results regarding their HIV status in order to formulate a safe and appropriate education plan for those children.”
In romantic or sexual settings, people with HIV often report fear of rejection, abandonment, and stigmatization.
“My first girlfriend in middle school — her mom banned her from seeing me, and it took me five years before I felt comfortable to try again,” said Reed Vreeland, a 27-year-old New Yorker who was born with HIV. Vreeland works as the communications coordinator for the Sero Project, a nonprofit advocacy group that campaigns against HIV exposure laws, which it denounces as “HIV criminalization.”
In 2006, Vreeland started dating a classmate at Bard College in upstate New York. He disclosed his HIV status on their second date.
“What’s going through your head is being scared of being rejected,” he said. “It’s scary to give someone that power.”
Vreeland and his girlfriend continued to date. Last spring, they married at a ceremony in the Bronx. “It took me a long time to propose, because I thought I would die,” he recalled. “I was saying, ‘Well, OK, why should I propose if I’m scared of dying in 10 years? And if we do have a kid, then I might die and leave my kid without a father, like I grew up without a mother.’”
The fear is “choking” and “silencing,” he said. “You’re conscious that saying three letters will change the way people will see you.”
In some cases, people with HIV have been met with violence — and even death — after disclosing their status. Last month, in Dallas, 37-year-old Larry Dunn was sentenced to 40 years in prison for murdering his HIV-positive lover. Police said he used a kitchen knife to stab and kill Cicely Bolden, a 28-year-old mother of two, after she told him about her HIV status. “She killed me,” he told investigators, according to his arrest warrant, “so I killed her.”
Until recently, criminal punishment was virtually unheard of for infectious diseases other than HIV. Federal and state officials have the authority to quarantine the sick to contain epidemics, but this power was typically granted to health authorities, who are versed in the latest science, not police and prosecutors. Very few criminal statutes take aim at diseases. At least two states have catchall laws against exposing others to “communicable diseases,” but only if exposure happens through routes most commonly associated with HIV, such as sex, sharing needles or donating blood. And while some states have laws that specifically punish exposure to tuberculosis, syphilis or “venereal diseases,” HIV exposure is almost always punished more severely.
But since 2007, three states have added hepatitis B and C to laws criminalizing HIV exposure. Those diseases are most prevalent among the same groups of marginalized people most at risk for HIV: intravenous drug users; gay men, especially those who are black or Latino; and black women.
Yet the laws may be unnecessary. In rare cases when someone intentionally tries to spread a virus, prosecutors have been able to put them away using ordinary criminal laws, such as assault or reckless endangerment. In 1997, a New York man named Nushawn Williams was accused of deliberately infecting at least 13 people, including two underage girls, with HIV. Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of statutory rape and one count of reckless endangerment. When his 12-year sentence ended in 2010, state officials kept him confined under laws that allow dangerous psychiatric patients to be locked up. He remains behind bars.
In Iowa, Rhoades’ case has prompted some lawmakers to reconsider whether exposing someone to HIV should carry such a heavy punishment.
“Putting somebody in prison for 25 years when they didn’t even transmit HIV is the most absurd thing that the state could be doing,” said Matt McCoy, an Iowa state senator who has introduced legislation to reduce the penalties. “It’s medieval.”
Even Plendl, the man Rhoades had sex with, thinks the law is too harsh. “Do I think he needs to be locked up forever?” Plendl asked. “No. Do I think these laws need to be revisited? Yes.”
[box title=Side Note]I personally have some experience with this myself. It's sad to say, but even in Canada, this type of law still gets followed by the Canadian courts as well. I posted this as a means of enlightening people to the realities that some of us who live with HIV must face and are always at risk of facing, even if the allegations are completely bogus. See this PDF for an example of exactly what I'm referring to. It outlines the case that I was involved with and had the unfortunate experience of actually having thrown at me. For the record, I had a damn good lawyer, so she managed to negotiate my sentence down to only 18 months (of which I had to serve 12).[/box]
-
It is indeed a very sensitive matter.
I am risking sounding a little discriminating here, however I am not. I do not discriminate people who are HIV+, however I am a little paranoid with my own health and would not like to risk contracting the virus. No matter how hard it is to catch the virus, it being undetectable or not (believe me, my level of paranoia led me to inform myself of everything related, so this is not an ignorant decision from me), I would still not risk having sex with someone who is HIV+, protected or not. I would certainly like to be informed of a positive status, and that would definitely influence on my decision of having sex with that person. It is my personal decision and it cannot be taken away from me. And that decision is exclusively related to sex. Not any other type of relation.
Some people may not care, and some people might. It is NOT up to the person infected to decide that. As sensitive as it may be, it is a very simple thing.
I do not buy fear of rejection. When we are into and getting to know someone, THERE WILL ALWAYS be some sort of fear of rejection. Many superficial reasons may lead into rejection, we are living in very superficial times, people have become disposable to one another. And in my opinion, your own health is not a superficial reason. There was a brilliant skecth on Amy Schumer's show, in which she's going out on a first date with a guy, and the guy tells her he's HIV+. She does everything to sound politically correct and not discriminate the guy, as awkward as it may be, and ends up coming to the conclusion that it is not a problem for her. She then tells him she's a celiac, and the guy being a foodie, finds celiac disease pure bull****, and ends up rejecting her for being a celiac. I think this was a very funny skecth to example what I am saying.
Other thing I don't buy is the person not knowing they're infected. There are several centers everywhere, in most countries, who perform the tests for free. It's about being responsible and going to get tested when a risky situation occurs. I myself get tested every 6 months, even though I do not have relations which are considered risky. So there is no excuse not to get tested and therefore, not knowing.
It is not the role of the State to babysit people. People need to be responsible with themselves and people around them. The role of the State is to create laws to regulate and then punish those who are not responsible enough to abide by them and may put others in danger.
-
If you have HIV and you want to have sex with someone it is moral thing to do is to say that you are HIV+, if you believe that that person will reject you so what, why would hiv+ perso want to hav sex with person who will reject them because they know their status.
-
Let's be honest here. There IS a good reason why such laws are on the books. And no, it's not aimed as an anti-gay or anti-lgbt measure.
There have been, more then a few cases in the past, where people have DELIBERATELY and WILLFULLY infected multiple partners with HIV because they felt since they were infected, everyone should be infected. That is where the laws stem from.
That said, I think the laws in question need a fair bit of tweaking and consideration.
There's a vast difference, to me at least, between DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL infecting of one or more partners and UNKNOWINGLY infecting a partner. There's also the issues, with in all communities regardless of gender and orientation, of the stigma of being HIV Positive. Far too many folks are undereducated or uneducated in the realities of HIV and AIDS. In the differences in exactly how safe 'safe sex' is. The differences between positive and detectable vs positive and undetectable, etc.
There's a whole spectrum of issues to consider. And sadly, far too many of today's youth, see HIV like the common cold snorts Oh I get it, I take the meds, I'm good.
-
I live in Brazil, and there are groups TODAY, of people who are HIV+, commited in deliberately trasmitting the virus. It isn't a thing of the past unfortunately. It still happens today. And there are also people called bug chasers who are looking into getting infected.
Unknowingly is a lame excuse, for me. Because nowadays most people know how to get infected. If they're ignorant about it, they're generally ignorant about the difficulty of how it is to get infected (they may think they get infected by kissing, as an example). So most people know when they had a risky situation, some may think that a safe situation was risky, but usually not the contrary. And I said before, there are several centers who test for free. I used to live in LA, and there were even vans in the street doing rapid tests for free. Not knowing your status, when you've had a risky situation, is not wanting to know. Therefore, to me, is as irresponsible and criminal as knowing it and not saying anything.
-
Over the last decade, there have been at least 541 cases in which people were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, criminal charges for not disclosing that they were HIV-positive, according to a ProPublica analysis of records from 19 states. The national tally is surely higher, because at least 35 states have laws that specifically criminalize exposing another person to HIV. In 29 states, it is a felony. None of the laws require transmission to occur.
-
Allow me to shed some light on this whole thing for everyone concerned…. I can speak quite confidently from the perspective of someone who has been living with HIV for over 6 years now, and has been dragged through the legal system, solely for being HIV+.....
First off, I will say quite freely that people like you beachbro are part of the whole reason why a lot of people do not disclose their HIV status. The fact alone that you would compare something like HIV to something that does not perversely affect your overall daily health and does not compound your situation if you get sick quite frankly is an outrage. Imagine that you were to get involved with someone and decided to take it slowly... A month or so of developping feelings for the person you've been seeing and sex comes up, at which point you disclose your status only to be pushed away isn't exactly all that easy of a pill to swallow. Furthermore, your "paranoia" as you may call it is flat out bullshit. The reality is that you're not paranoid, but rather are clearly not properly educated on the subject. Sadly, people like you are the lesser of the problem when it comes to rejection. More specifically, where the fear of rejection comes from is in cases like mine. I was seeing someone at the time that I got the positive test result. My partner was the first person that I told about the test result, and do you know what I came home to?..... I'm guessing you don't..... I came home to find that the partner who I thought loved me had packed all my shit into garbage bags, threw it out onto the front lawn, and changed the locks. The reality is that this is the type of rejection that we face all too often. Don't get me wrong though, I do agree that it is your choice to make, but you say it as though you are the only person with any kind of feeling or emotions involved in that decision. The fact that you would just push away from someone who is HIV+ solely for the fact that they are HIV+ is a form of discrimination all unto itself, so before you open your mouth and insert your other foot while you're at it, I suggest that you properly educate yourself on all the facts. As for your commentary about not knowing that you have HIV being complete bullshit, I also have objections to that as I was once one of them myself. As far as I knew, I was in a monogamous relationship and did not play around. What I wasn't aware of was the fact that the person that I was with wasn't exactly as honest as I thought and went to great lengths to get me to let my guard down. As the result, I found myself in a situation where it didn't seem to make any sense to get regular testing because I trusted the person that I was with, and I trusted that they were not fooling around on me. In theory, if you're monogamous with a partner who you believe to the best of your knowledge to be negative, it makes absolutely no sense to require regular testing. There's more to consider than what it would seem... Also, have you ever stopped to think that there are some people out there who are afraid of getting tested for fear of the legal complications that can come with a positive test result? I am living proof of such complications. Part of why I'm so outraged with your point of view is that you seem to be completely blinded to the psychological effects over time of being rejected solely because you're HIV+. I'll bet you didn't even know that there are places even here in Canada or down South in the USA where if you're known to be HIV+, you had best be prepared to live in exile. I know this all too well as I happen to live in one such area, and I can assure you that the constant rejection and judgement solely for being HIV+ takes a huge toll on your mental health and your ability to feel comfortable with being out about your status. Oh.... And one more thing..... You really should be careful as to what you define as being "risky", as this is an open issue that is up to interperetation. In my case, I was not engaging in anything that most "normal" people would define as "risky", but nevertheless, I was infected. Perhaps you may want to further define the terms that you're using such as "risky" because the definition will vary from one person to the next.
@tony666: I fully agree that disclosing your status to a sexual partner is the morally correct thing to do. What I don't think you understand (and I have stressed above) is the psychological damage that the constant rejection solely for being HIV+ has on a person's mental health. Why do you think so many of them commit suicide or otherwise end up with a severe case of depression? That being said though, there's more than just the fear of rejection to take into account here. The other key factor to take into account is the whole risk of criminal persecution, solely for being HIV+. This too presents a big hesitation to a lot of people when deciding whether or not to disclose their status.
@DennSedai: There is no nice way to put this, so I'm just going to come out with it.... YOU DISGUST ME!!!!!! Allow me to give you a harsh dose of reality hunny because clearly you're a part of the problem. On April 16, 2010, I was arrested and charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault x2 for allegedly failing to disclose my HIV status to a sexual partner. I had my name, picture, and everything dragged through the media, most especially through the local sources, and had the following 3 years of my life completely destroyed because of it as it went through the courts to get taken to trial. Here's the sickening part.... BOTH of the key witnesses to testify were caught committing perjury (mainly because the whole case was a giant lie), and they were busted for colluding with each other during the trial, against a direct judge's order. On top of the more than reasonable doubt of the occurrence (on account of I did disclose my HIV status and I did NOT have sex with the 2nd person in question) there also lies the whole element of questioning credibility on account of what all went down at the trial. Nevertheless, because I live in an area where too many people are afraid of HIV, I was somehow convicted, even though it was clearly established that I did NOT do what I was accused of. In the Canadian legal system (as well as the US system) this type of thing happens far too often. Waaaaaaay too often the person accused is convicted, even when there is more than reasonable doubt, or there is absolute certainty of the person's innocense. Not to mention, I can tell you first hand from having been subjected to the horrid conditions of jail life over it, being in jail WILL in time have a very detrimental effect on a person's health. The statistics on how many cases resulted in a conviction that shouldn't have are scary to say the least. Furthermore, there lies another systematic issue..... By legal classification, Syphilis meets the same legal criteria to constitute the same charge, however no jurisdiction will persecute for Syphilis as a matter of policy, which all unto itself is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.15(1). Despite this however, this type of discrimination still occurs far too often, resulting in innocent people being sent to jail and having their health and quality of health care that they receive seriously compromised, solely for the fact that they are HIV+ whether you're willing to admit it or not. By saying that you fully support these laws being manipulated like this, you are saying that you fully support the discrimination and persecution of individuals solely because they are HIV+, regardless of whether or not they are guilty of the offense in which they find themselves accused. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not to mention.... There is absolutely nothing that is "correctional" in "correctional services". While I will concede that there are some people out there who deliberately intend to infect people, this shouldn't be a matter for the criminal courts for a few reasons. The most obvious of which is the fact that it should not be solely MY responsibility to take care of my own health..... It should damn well be equally the responsibility of the other individual to take care of their own fucking health. By supporting that kind of system, you are supporting a 1-sided set of standards that is soleley set out for the purpose of discriminating against an individual, solely because they are HIV+, rather than looking at the facts. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you take a look at this article, which was written by a man who had only ever heard of me for the first time at my trial. It is completely factually accurate, and was written based solely on the evidence presented at the trial.
Now, while I'm on the whole topic of people who willfully and deliberately infect others with HIV, the criminal system does absolutely NOTHING to deter these people, nor does it do anything to "correct" any behaviours of the person. People like my co-accused (Steven Boone) for example are the classic epitome of what I speak. I'm kind of saddened that people like Steven Boone have been in solitary confinement for several years now, solely because he is HIV+. That type of treatment will only further degrade the state of his mental health and prove to actually have the exact opposite effect than what it is theoretically intended to do. This type of treatment is no better than the type of treatment that gays were receiving with the whole Stonewall Hotel raid (among many others). If you want to really deal with the problem with these people, the correct response is to send them to a psychiatric institution where they can get their mental issues that cause such behaviour in the first place dealt with. Once corrected, they could then be let out back into the public. Instead, we seem to have a system that actively promotes the degrading, persecution, and overall destruction of individuals solely because they are HIV+, placing them in an environment which has great potential to jeopardize their health and does absolutely nothing to correct the problem. This is the system that you are saying that you support there DennSedal, and quite frankly, it disgusts me to find that people like you actually promote this kind of discrimination. It's absolutely no better than persecuting people solely because they are gay. I say that we should take people like you who support this type of system and treatment and lock them up in jail for a reeeeeeeeally long time, solely because you're fucked in the head enough to believe that such a system is the correct way of dealing with that kind of thing. Obviously you must have a screw loose somewhere upstairs to even think that this system is a good thing in any way, when in fact, it only destroys the lives of EVERYONE involved.
Now…. As for you spam17.... My rant isn't over quite yet...... I suggest that before you start running your mouth, you actually check your facts. NOWHERE in North America are there any laws specific to HIV. They simply do not exist. Instead, the Attorney General has decided to manipulate laws that already exist to find bullshit ways of twisting things to make already existing laws apply to lay a charge. The charges themselves range anywhere from administering an obnoxious substance to attempted murder, and all things in between. In my case, it was the CCC s.273(1) that was used under the argument that if left untreated, HIV will result in death, thus posing a significant risk of endangerment to the life of the alleged victim. That's the bullshit twist that they used to make it constitute Aggravated Sexual Assault in the first place...... Because there are no specific laws to HIV, there is also a huge inconsistency in the way that the cases are handled, and no clear presendent seems to be set. Not only that, but in each case, the critical elements and issues that need to be addressed vary greatly from one case to the next, leaving absolutely NO standard in which to follow. It's entirely a matter of who can twist things into something that they're not even better...... So..... Before you start running your mouth, I suggest that you get ALL of your facts because clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If you don't believe me, I can bring up several cases that I have been directly involved with to reference to prove my whole point.
Now.... All this being said, I must apologize in advance if I have offended anyone with my view on the whole situation. The whole issue is kind of near and dear to me, largely because I am one of the few people to have been dragged through that kind of hell who didn't commit suicide in the process (although I cam very close more than once). I'm a little "passionate" I guess you could say about the whole subject, especially since I'm one of the MANY people who was dragged through the mud over something that I didn't do..... As I've said before and I'll say it again.... There are far too many people, even at this day and age, who are wrongfully persecuted, convicted, and sent to jail for nothing more than being HIV+. I can't help but get a little pissy when I am faced with opposition to my mission to have the whole thing taken out of the criminal system because HIV is not a crime. I also get a little pissy when I see people trying to make a point on the subject, when clearly they do not know what they're talking about.... I have spent MANY hours in MANY court rooms seeing it unfold for myself, prompting me to do my research for my mission to abolish the whole bullshit from ever hitting the criminal system in the first place, especially when you get slammed by public health as well, so you literally get persecuted TWICE over nothing more than a verbal allegation made by two lying sacks of shit who got busted for lying about it in the first place.
-
Hello Mrmazda, now allow me to shed some light over everything that you just said.
It seems to me, and forgive if I'm wrong in what I have to say, that you have a little problem taking things personally, not being able to stand up for what you think and taking responsibility for your own actions.
Firstly, you need to stand up for what you say and think. You chose to deliberately rant and insult people here, then you apologize for that, but you still keep your words. That's immature, false and coward (not saying you're any of that, just your attitude), because if you were really sorry, you would edit your text, and say everything you said differently. If you think I'm an idiot, then you think I'm an idiot. I know myself, and whether I am an idiot or not, I would not be offended, especially by someone who doesn't know me, because if I am an idiot, I am an idiot. And if I'm not, I'm not.
I hardly think people like me are part of the reason people with HIV do not disclose their status. On the contrary, people like me SHOULD be the reason why you have to disclose your status right off the bat. Because why would you get romantically involved with someone whom you don't know will accept your condition? That's a bit self-destructive, don't you think? How are you gonna find those who do accept your condition if you're not honest about it from the very first moment?
People who are HIV+ do not disclose their status, because they have fear of rejection and being discriminated. Nothing else. Not because of me, or people like me, or whatever other reason. So take responsibility for it. Because in the world there are "people like me" and there are people who are NOT LIKE ME. It is not my fault. Not because I am an idiot. Just because it is really not. I believe, and said it before, that there may be a very long list of things, for someone to reject you, when it comes to dating, or any other interpersonal relationship. The only way for you to find those who will accept you as a lover or a friend, is being truthful and honest about yourself.
I really don't need to explain myself, or justify myself. But I'll just do it in order to show your ilogical thinking. I am a very curious person. And I have done a great share of research on the subject. Also attended many seminars about it, in school, at work, etc. And have also spoken with a few virologists on the matter. If I knew HIV of being something that does not perversely affect my overall daily health and does not compound my situation if I got sick, would I be the least concerned about it? It doesn't make sense.
It seems that you're the one thinking that you're the only one with feelings and emotions. Or do you think your partner threw your stuff out in garbage bags and changed the locks, because he does not have feelings? You know what you feel. But have you ever stopped to think about the way HE felt? Because that seems to me like a radical decision, and radical decisions, are usually taken, when you feel great emotion about something, and have to do something about it. Maybe he did it because he loved you too much. Maybe he thought that you got infected during your relationship and felt betrayed. Maybe he did not believe you that you got infected in your previous relationship. It seems like you want the world to feel empathetic about you, but you don't feel any empathy about the rest of the world.
Just to make it clear, and I thought I did on my first post. I DO NOT push away people who are HIV+. It is my decision, not to have a knowingly sexual relationship with someone who is. And my decision is exclusively sexual. And consequently romantical too, since in order for that to happen sex plays a great part at it. If I were to meet you right now in person, I would treat you, and relate to you just like ANY OTHER PERSON. Stop playing the whole "me against the world" thing, because not the entire world is against you. Your condition may lead you to think that, but open your eyes, there are all sorts of people in the world.
I am fully empathetic with your story, how you got infected. It is really sad to be deceived by someone you love. I really, really feel for you. And I have a friend that happened exactly the same as your story. However MrMazda, is always very easy, to blame on others, and exclude our own responsibility. And believe me, we are always responsible for whatever happens to us. Even if partially. Even if it was not actively caused by us. We ALWAYS have our share of resposibility.
My suggestion to you, is to chin up, what's done is done, whatever happened and is not in your power to change, happened. Do not look into the past. Look into the present and future. Look for the people who will stand by you, and support you, no matter how hard that may be.
And if you ever need, feel free to pm me!
-
While I do see where you're coming from, it is abundantly clear to me that you do not fully understand the entire situation at hand. Call me whatever you will, but that doesn't make it so. For one thing, your suggestion of changing what has already been said is completely insane to say the least. Going back and re-wording what has already been said would more or less either be sugar coating the whole thing, or otherwise adding a layer of censorship to the matter.
I can tell that you clearly do NOT understand what goes through the mind of someone with HIV. While you are partially correct with respect to the fear of rejection, the sad reality is that the fear of rejection only accounts for a small portion of the reasons why some people do not disclose, or otherwise shy away from intimacy on any level with another person who is not HIV+. While the fear of rejection in a lot of cases is a part of why MOST people with HIV do not disclose their status, it is exactly that…. only a small factor involved in such a decision. I've said it before and I'll say it again, people who simply throw up the hard wall and back away at the mention of being HIV+ are also a huge factor in why far too many people with HIV do not disclose their status. This is largely because from my experience, it is people like you who are the first to cry wolf and open the legal can of worms that far too many people have had opened for them. It's more than just the fear of rejection.... It's more so the fear of legal consequences from my experience.
Now.... You kind of made it personal when you brought up the point about how my one ex reacted to me breaking the news to him. This is also something that you clearly know NOTHING about. Before you go jumping to conclusions as you clearly already have, why don't you stop to get all the facts? What you've clearly said is that what I can say first hand from my own experience is completely wrong, which suggests that it may actually be you who does not have the facts. I know full well why he reacted by literally throwing me out to the curb. In several ways you have speculated as to what the reasoning is, without ever stopping to get the facts or inquire for more information. Ever stop to think that perhaps the shock of finding out that he had been exposed to something I knew nothing about may have anything to do with why he freaked out? Or did you ever stop to consider the fact that no matter how educated you are on the subject, there is absolutely NOTHING that can prepare you for receiving such news? Clearly, you have missed my entire point to begin with, so I guess I'll have to spell it out to you.....
People like you are one of the very precise reasons why some people do not disclose their status. See.... It's the people who clearly reject someone simply because they're HIV+ who will bring up the other legal issues that surround being HIV+. The whole fear of rejection may come into play for the first year or so, but on average, after the first year, the fear of disclosure stems more from the fact that there are possible legal consequences to be paid, solely because you are HIV+ and in the eyes of the law, if you're HIV+, automatically you must be a liar. The sad reality is that there are many people that I know of who simply avoid sexual encounters all together, solely because of the fear of these legal consequences, since avoiding anything sexual avoids having to disclose their status. On this note, disclosing your status can lead to spiteful allegations, simply because someone either doesn't like you, or wants to get back at you for something, knowing that because you're HIV+, you're at a disadvantage. I find it very funny how someone like you can contradict themselves so many times in the same paragraph. This clearly suggests that you have no actual inside insight as to the reasons why far too many people choose not to disclose their status. I'm not saying that it's right by any stretch of the imagination, however there are quite a few people that I know of off the top of my head who choose not to disclose their status because they're undetectable and if they conceal their status to themselves, in theory there's no need to worry about the legal consequences. The fear of rejection factor is a card that I just don't buy into. While the fear of rejection may be a large factor in the failure to disclose within the first year, it certainly does NOT account for the majority of the masses who have already passed this stage. The fear of the legal complications that can result from something as simple as spite are far more of a relevant factor for the majority of people who either choose not to disclose, or even worse, avoid sexual encounters all together. Also, on that note, have you ever stopped to consider that by not disclosing your status at all, some people actually figure that they can conceal it from everyone, and thus in doing so, eliminates the possibility of having word get back to someone that you're getting intimate with through the grape vine in the first place? I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... Until you have lived it for yourself, I wouldn't be too eager to try to explain to people how things are because until you have lived through it yourself, you don't know the first damn thing about what you're talking about.
It is my decision, not to have a knowingly sexual relationship with someone who is. And my decision is exclusively sexual. And consequently romantical too, since in order for that to happen sex plays a great part at it.
Way to contradict yourself there dude….. How the fuck do you think you push someone away in the first place? Getting close to them, only to have feelings start to develop, just to reject them when things start to get more intimate is EXACTLY that... It's pushing them away. So... Before you go giving me this bullshit about how you do not push people away, perhaps you should consider that the rejection alone in and of itself pushes them away. I find it kind of funny how you say one thing, then immediately in your next breath, contradict yourself.
Stop playing the whole "me against the world" thing, because not the entire world is against you. Your condition may lead you to think that, but open your eyes, there are all sorts of people in the world.
Again I will reiterate what I have already said…. Before you go opening your mouth and inserting your other foot by saying things like not staying focused on the past, why don't you take a look at the whole of the situation. BECAUSE of what has gone down, I am perpetually stuck in the position where it's next to impossible to move forward. More specifically, I find myself in a position where I'm both unemployed and unemployable, solely because of what I have been subjected to. Take a closer look at this article which outlines my situation to begin with. In this particular example, I disclosed my status, but because of my association with Steven Boone, I found myself the target of this legal nightmare. As the result, when I apply for a job, I now have to select "Yes" when I get to the question "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense for which a pardon has not been granted?". The problem that comes into play here is that as soon as you select yes, the employer has the right to ask for details. Far too often from what I've found, it's not the criminal record that they have the problem with at all. In the last 6 jobs that I have applied for, as soon as HIV gets mentioned, the job interview quickly changes its path as the HR person doing the interview became very uncomfortable, asking 10,000 questions about HIV, only to get scared away for no reason and never call me back. So…. This being said, how in the fuck can you realistically expect one to move forward from the past, when the past still continues to haunt them to this very day? Also, how in the fuck is a person supposed to move forward exactly, when now I have the constant reminder of the wrongful allegations comes back at the very least once a year when having to register for the sex offender registry, all over something that I did NOT do?
Also, I must say that I find it quite disgusting that you can just so freely dismiss the reality of what happens on a daily basis. What's more alarming is the fact that it was 12 allegedly unbiased people who could not reasonably conclude that there was at the very least a reasonable doubt on the question both of disclosure and on a large part, the sexual acts that were alleged as well. So again I must say that before you start to criticize the situation and life path of others, that you clearly take into account all of the factors involved in that particular case. Don't get me wrong though... I would love nothing more than to just sweep that whole nightmare under the carpet and forget that it ever happened, but that seems an impossible task when every day I have that constant reminder that I am stuck where I am in the first place because of 2 lying sacks of shit and 12 obviously biased people who have a fear of HIV. It's pretty well impossible to focus on the present, much less the concept of a future, when every day that you try, you're continually held back over wrongful allegations that were made out of spite for someone who you happen to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time with. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason why I am so "bitter" (for lack of a better term) with the whole situation, the legal system, and with people like you who will push themselves away from people with HIV in the first place is because of the stigma fuelled injustice that continues to progress every day?
Lastly, I will NOT apologize for anything that I have said in this post. If this offends you, then you can get in line with the rest of them bitches waiting for me to give a flying fuck! Since you seem to be so quick at accusing me of ranting and insulting, I figured I may as well show you what a rant and insult actually is. Perhaps it wouldn't be so personal if it wasn't for the fact that the whole issue of HIV and the law happens to be an issue that hits a little too close to home. Perhaps if you stopped to ask questions instead of making assumptions, you'd get a different response. I will be very clear when I say do not expect me to back down from my position, without first debating with fact, instead of speculation.
EDIT: Don't take this the wrong way… I'm not a complete bitch... It's just that the whole thing of HIV and the law happens to be a rather touchy subject for me. Refer to this article for more information on the whole reason why this is a touchy subject. Aside from this, I am actually quite nice… a teddy bear if you will. This just happens to be one particular subject that is a little touchy to say the least.
-
Since 2001, 24 people have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom (20 in England and Wales, and four in Scotland, which has a different legal system) for giving their sexual partners HIV. However, many more cases have been investigated by the police and some of these investigations may be inappropriate. This highlights the importance of good legal advice at the earliest possible stage of an investigation.
The laws used to prosecute criminal HIV transmission developed from existing assault laws – recklessly or intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm in England and Wales and reckless endangerment and reckless or intentional injury in Scotland. The law in Northern Ireland is similar to that in England and Wales but there have been no prosecutions so far.
:afr:
