Support NeoGAF

[Armaros]

Cry me a river. She consented to unprotected sex with a man who bragged about his promiscuity and drug abuse. She then went to work and potentially exposed her coworkers to whatever STDs Sheen might have exposed her to. She's no better than he is.

That said, of course Sheen wasn't telling everyone he slept with he was HIV+, especially when he was being blackmailed by people who did know. You'd have to be very naive to believe that.

Victim blaming 101

Over alleged undisclosed HIV.

People never cease to disappoint me

 

[tmarques]

The FUCK at the bolded. She assumed the risk for herself, which I do agree seems like a mistake. But you don't know if she got tested/what she later disclosed.

Getting tested doesn't eliminate risk since HIV is undetectable for at least a couple of weeks after infection. Which is why my position has always been that you should always assume your partner might be HIV+ and protect yourself accordingly instead of basing your decisions on whatever your partner is telling you about their status.

As for the porn star in question, I just find her outrage at Sheen funny. Any performer who engages in unprotected sex outside of the industry is rising the risk of an HIV breakout. We've seen that a few times. She wasn't being much more responsible than Sheen is all I'm saying.

 

[Lenty]

Looks as though someone hopped on an alternate account to say the same things he was already saying on another account.

We already know all of this.

There is no "Does this mean you should disclose?"

It's only: Yes, you should disclose.

And, honestly, it should be before you're reaching for a condom.

Nope, just someone who works in HIV prevention and saw a lot of misinformation. I'm glad you already know all this, I personally didn't read it in the last few pages, so thought others might be interested.

 

[toythatkills]

As for the porn star in question, I just find her outrage at Sheen funny. Any performer who engages in unprotected sex outside of the industry is rising the risk of an HIV breakout. We've seen that a few times. She wasn't being much more responsible than Sheen is all I'm saying.

Had she not retired from porn at that point?

 

[Lenty]

isnt there 2 versions of HIV?.
One that you can live with for your life with use of medicine that stops it to evolve,
and the other version that takes your life pretty fast?

Which does Charlie have?

There are two types of HIV. HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-2 is harder to transmit and mostly limited to Western Africa. Charlie will have HIV-1 and if adherent can expect to live a near normal life span. His doctor is, rightly, more worried about the excess drink on his liver (which is also having to process his antiretrovirals).

 

[plagiarize]

It's only "undue weight" in your opinion.

If you will never do something that has a teeny tiny chance of giving you a treatable disease... then yeah... you're putting undue weight on that possible outcome. If someone is receiving the proper treatment and you are taking the proper precautions, the odds of you getting the disease are lower than the odds of you getting murdered today or the odds of you dying in a car accident today. Or heck, the odds of you dying of heart disease.

 

[PBY]

If you will never do something that has a teeny tiny chance of giving you a treatable disease... then yeah... you're putting undue weight on that possible outcome. If someone is receiving the proper treatment and you are taking the proper precautions, the odds of you getting the disease are lower than the odds of you getting murdered today or the odds of you dying in a car accident today. Or heck, the odds of you dying of heart disease.

It doesn't matter. You should have the agency to not do something that will put that extra risk in play.

 

[Father_Brain]

0 =/= 0.000000001

That may be insane or negligible - but there IS a chance. And you MUST disclose that. It is not rational to freak out, but you DO have the right to agency in your sexual decisions, and YOU NEED TO KNOW that you are assuming that (infinitesimally small) risk that your life can forever be changed.

You can choose to treat the difference between "literally zero" and "infinitesimally small" as an immense one. Just don't pretend that it's founded on any kind of rational risk assessment rather than emotion.

 

[PBY]

You can choose to treat the difference between "literally zero" and "infinitesimally small" as an immense one. Just don't pretend that it's founded on any kind of rational risk assessment rather than emotion.

I'm not choosing anything, nor am I making any sort of value judgment about that kind of decisionmaking. That said, it does not for one ounce minimize the need for dicslosure.

 

[plagiarize]

It doesn't matter. You should have the agency to not do something that will put that extra risk in play.

I have been very clear in all my posts to say that I think HIV positive people should disclose this to people prior to any sexual encounter.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Wait so he engaged in unprotected sex knowing he was HIV positive, but didn't disclose this to partners?

Isn't that manslaughter?

 

[Tesseract]

You can choose to treat the difference between "literally zero" and "infinitesimally small" as an immense one. Just don't pretend that it's founded on any kind of rational risk assessment rather than emotion.

absolute twaddle, sorry mate

 

[Prez]

Yeah wtf. Posts like this is why there's still a significant stigma toward HIV+ people today.

That's why I asked earlier in this thread what people here think is the transmission rate for unprotected sex with undetectable viral loads. People overestimate the risk by a factor of a million.

 

[Father_Brain]

I'm not choosing anything, nor am I making any sort of value judgment about that kind of decisionmaking. That said, it does not for one ounce minimize the need for dicslosure.

If you think you're not choosing anything or making any kind of value judgment, you're not paying attention to your own words, with all due respect.

 

[entremet]

Wait so he engaged in unprotected sex knowing he was HIV positive, but didn't disclose this to partners?

Isn't that manslaughter?

No. There's no laws in the US against this. He's a massive asshole.

 

[plagiarize]

Wait so he engaged in unprotected sex knowing he was HIV positive, but didn't disclose this to partners?

Isn't that manslaughter?

If he didn't disclose and knew at the time and then they got aids and died... then yeah. Manslaughter.

But the only one we know of, never caught HIV from him. So whatever it might be, legally speaking, it certainly can't be manslaughter.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

No. There's no laws in the US against this. He's a massive asshole.

There are laws against this. About half of the states have HIV specific provisions. All states would classify that as some form of assault/endangerment. There have been people prosecuted for that.

 

[PBY]

If you think you're not choosing anything or making any kind of value judgment, you're not paying attention to your own words, with all due respect.

?

Literally don't know how you're getting that. I understand your point - there definitely is an element of ebola fear/anti-vaccer-ism to the general sense of fear vs reality here.

That said - there IS a difference. You are having a risk thrust upon you that you have to have the opportunity to consent to with full information.

Informed consent is like the most basic aspect of sexuality, don't know why you would want to sort of gloss over this to prove your point - which I generally agree with btw.

 

[Eric C]

At least we've made some progress in this thread. People aren't avoiding agreeing that people with HIV should disclose anymore.

That's really the end of the argument. There are no ifs ands or buts.

Someone with HIV has a legal and moral obligation to disclose.

Which is great. If you're HIV+ you should tell all your sexual partners. Period. There is absolutely no justification for not informing your sexual partners.

No matter how low the risk is, they deserve to have that info to make that informed decision themselves.

Some of the things people had been saying earlier in the thread were very troubling to read.

 

[plagiarize]

absolute twaddle, sorry mate

If you base the way you live your life on possible outcomes that are one in a million (or less), then I don't envy you.

 

[entremet]

There are laws against this. About half of the states have HIV specific provisions. All states would classify that as some form of assault/endangerment. There have been people prosecuted for that.

Ah, interesting. Have there been prosecutions? Specifically under manslaughter?

 

[PBY]

If you base the way you live your life on possible outcomes that are one in a million (or less), then I don't envy you.

That misses the point. You need to be able to make that informed decision.

And sure - it is arguably irrational to not participate. But you do have the right to not put yourself out and accept that risk.

 

[plagiarize]

That misses the point. You need to be able to make that informed decision.

And sure - it is arguably irrational to not participate. But you do have the right to not put yourself out and accept that risk.

You keep replying to my posts to other people, that are specifically talking about the risks involved, and how people put undue weight on them.

I shall bold this for you, so you stop replying to me about it:

I believe people who know themselves to be HIV positive should inform potential sexual partners prior to any and all forms of intercourse where this could be transmitted.

 

[And_Gignac]

No, I'm not HIV+, but I had a 4 years relationship with a HIV+ partner and, guess, what? Didn't contract the virus.

And my problem is not with people not wanting to have sex with HIV+ people, is the ignorance displayed when they have no problems having sex with someone whose status is unknown but wouldn't have sex with someone who virtually and practically is incapable of transmitting the virus to you.

If your argument is, I won't have sex with someone who doesn’t know their status and I won't have sex with a HIV+ person regardless of their viral load, I can totally understand you, mind me.

This is the center of the discussion. It is biologically impossible in normal sex circumstances to adquire the vrius from an HIV+ person who is undetectable and even more so if you wear condoms. That should be factored in when considering how much moral scrutiny a person doing it (not disclosing) should get.

What some of us are saying (or at least I) is that:

yes, it is not OK to not disclose, and that
yes, the other party involved has a right to know, but that it is not just a major offense as some are trying to portrait it. Because the risk is not really there.

Is that up to the other party to decide? Absolutely. But their reaction should be based on current medical truths, not visceral fear it the disclosure doesnt happen.

 

[PBY]

You keep replying to my posts to other people, that are specifically talking about the risks involved, and how people put undue weight on them.

I shall bold this for you, so you stop replying to me about it:

I believe people who know themselves to be HIV positive should inform potential sexual partners prior to any and all forms of intercourse where this could be transmitted.

I hear you - but then you keep minimizing peoples decisions not to partake given that chance.

I don't begrudge them to be honest. Its such an insane risk, but if you don't want to add that variable into your life, more power to you.

I agree with the overall point you make though - its important to fight the stigma/shitty conceptions people have

 

[Father_Brain]

This is the center of the discussion. It is biologically impossible in normal sex circumstances to adquire the vrius from an HIV+ person who is undetectable and even more so if you wear condoms. That should be factored in when considering how much moral scrutiny a person doing it (not disclosing) should get.

What some of us are saying (or at least I) is that:

yes, it is not OK to not disclose, and that
yes, the other party involved has a right to know, but that it is not just a major offense as some are trying to portrait it. Because the risk is not really there.

Is that up to the other party to decide? Absolutely. But their reaction should be based on current medical truths, not visceral fear.

Yes, yes, yes. There is a hell of a lot of daylight between "unethical" and "horrific violation of your partner's rights."

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Ah, interesting. Have there been prosecutions? Specifically under manslaughter?

Oh manslaighter. I don't know about that one. I doubt there has been much, if any, precedence there.

 

[Storm Chamber]

She consented to unprotected sex with a man who bragged about his promiscuity and drug abuse.

That said, of course Sheen wasn't telling everyone he slept with he was HIV+

She's no better than he is.

 

[plagiarize]

I hear you - but then you keep minimizing peoples decisions not to partake given that chance.

I don't begrudge them to be honest. Its such an insane risk, but if you don't want to add that variable into your life, more power to you.

I agree with the overall point you make though - its important to fight the stigma/shitty conceptions people have

I don't think anyone should be forced into doing something they don't want to, but if you let odds like that effect your life, then I think there is reason to suggest that there is an issue there that should be looked at.

I certainly don't think 'more power to you'. A choice based on information is a good one. One based on fears or misinformation, not so much. Still someone's choice to make, but still a decision I'll continue arguing with.

When I see someone state a position like that, my presumption is always they're either ill informed or misinformed, and when it comes to HIV there is a lot of misinformation out there, so I'd certainly never blame anyone for falling victim to it. But I wouldn't just send them back on their way without trying to shine some light on the reality of the matter, even if that reality is 'you are letting your fears make you irrational'.

If you refuse to fly for fear of the plane crashing, I will try to show you that it's not a rational stance to take, and try to help you get over it. I'm all for safety demonstrations prior to take off though. If a potential partner of mine informed me they were HIV positive, I'd be grateful. Maybe I'd double check the expiration date on the condom packet... but I wouldn't put my pants back on and get the hell out of there, because that's cold as shit.

 

[NoFaceNico]

No. There's no laws in the US against this. He's a massive asshole.

Yes, there are laws in certain states, and California is one of them.

Source

Cal. Health and Safety Code § 120291
Felony
Any person who exposes another to HIV by engaging in unprotected sexual activity (anal or vaginal intercourse without a condom) when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV, is guilty of a felony. A person's knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, is not sufficient to prove specific intent.

Cal. Health and Safety Code § 120290
Misdemeanor
Any person afflicted with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes him/herself to another person (and any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else) is guilty of a misdemeanor.

He said in the Today show revelation that he notified all of his partners before having sex with them, probably to try to avoid felony charges but he could still be charged with a misdemeanor but realistically I doubt the authorities will act on it. But what he really has to worry about is the civil suits.

 

[ivysaur12]

This is the center of the discussion. It is biologically impossible in normal sex circumstances to adquire the vrius from an HIV+ person who is undetectable and even more so if you wear condoms. That should be factored in when considering how much moral scrutiny a person doing it (not disclosing) should get.

What some of us are saying (or at least I) is that:

yes, it is not OK to not disclose, and that
yes, the other party involved has a right to know, but that it is not just a major offense as some are trying to portrait it. Because the risk is not really there.

Is that up to the other party to decide? Absolutely. But their reaction should be based on current medical truths, not visceral fear it the disclosure doesnt happen.

I can get behind this.

Most of my issue with you (and others) in this thread is that it felt like you were hand waving on the need to disclose due to a "medical improbability". I totally get the stigma that you guys are trying to fight, but it does feel as if there has been some overcorrection in the need to forcefully state that the person who is HIV+ really needs to disclose their status to their partners before they have sex with them.

People should know it's very difficult to contract HIV given current medicine, but that doesn't also mean that HIV+ people should feel free to keep their partners in the dark about their status.

 

[ramuh]

He said in the Today show revelation that he notified all of his partners before having sex with them, probably to try to avoid felony charges but he could still be charged with a misdemeanor but realistically I doubt the authorities will act on it. But what he really has to worry about is the civil suits.

Bree said today that she was never informed. So she could potential sue even if she never contracted it, for civil damages like emotional stress. etc.

 

[PBY]

I don't think anyone should be forced into doing something they don't want to, but if you let odds like that effect your life, then I think there is reason to suggest that there is an issue there that should be looked at.

I certainly don't think 'more power to you'. A choice based on information is a good one. One based on fears or misinformation, not so much. Still someone's choice to make, but still a decision I'll continue arguing with.

When I see someone state a position like that, my presumption is always they're either ill informed or misinformed, and when it comes to HIV there is a lot of misinformation out there, so I'd certainly never blame anyone for falling victim to it. But I wouldn't just send them back on their way without trying to shine some light on the reality of the matter, even if that reality is 'you are letting your fears make you irrational'.

If you refuse to fly for fear of the plane crashing, I will try to show you that it's not a rational stance to take, and try to help you get over it. I'm all for safety demonstrations prior to take off though. If a potential partner of mine informed me they were HIV positive, I'd be grateful. Maybe I'd double check the expiration date on the condom packet... but I wouldn't put my pants back on and get the hell out of there, because that's cold as shit.

I agree with everything you're saying, EXCEPT that flying can be necessary, as are vaccines, and driving, and other items we make risk-assessments with on a daily basis.

I disagree when you say that's cold as shit. It SUCKS for the HIV positive person, but what you are suggesting is that its shitty to NOT have sex with someone who has HIV (understanding the risk/percentages). Nope. Sexual intercourse has to be completely consenting, and you DO have the choice to not make a outward act (that isn't necessary, its just one-off sex we're discussing here) that adds variables into your life.

 

[NHarmonic.]

There was only one case, i think, of HIV being cured and it was because of a spinal cord transplant. This seems dangerous.

 

[plagiarize]

Yes, there are laws in certain states, and California is one of them.

Source


He said in the Today show revelation that he notified all of his partners before having sex with them, probably to try to avoid felony charges but he could still be charged with a misdemeanor but realistically I doubt the authorities will act on it. But what he really has to worry about is the civil suits.

I'm not sure if there have been any cases that really test this law yet, but you could definitely argue that *if* he is receiving proper treatment that he isn't contagious etc. He should have informed everyone, and I don't doubt that we'll hear more about this, but it's going to interesting should this get anywhere near a court room, if indeed there isn't already precedent.

Certainly, what he has done is nothing like the felony charge, unless you are suggesting that he was intentionally trying to infect people.

 

[ramuh]

I'm not sure if there have been any cases that really test this law yet, but you could definitely argue that *if* he is receiving proper treatment that he isn't contagious etc. He should have informed everyone, and I don't doubt that we'll hear more about this, but it's going to interesting should this get anywhere near a court room, if indeed there isn't already precedent.

Certainly, what he has done is nothing like the felony charge, unless you are suggesting that he was intentionally trying to infect people.

It depends on the State, some if you intentional hide it is the same as you are trying to intentional give it. Felony.

I think California you have to prove criminal intent to purposefully infect another. He won't be charged with any felony. Civil lawsuits on the hand....

 

[plagiarize]

I agree with everything you're saying, EXCEPT that flying can be necessary, as are vaccines, and driving, and other items we make risk-assessments with on a daily basis.

I disagree when you say that's cold as shit. It SUCKS for the HIV positive person, but what you are suggesting is that its shitty to NOT have sex with someone who has HIV (understanding the risk/percentages). Nope. Sexual intercourse has to be completely consenting, and you DO have the choice to not make a outward act (that isn't necessary, its just one-off sex we're discussing here) that adds variables into your life.

Again, you have the choice... but yes, I think it is cold as hell to choose not to sleep with someone solely because they are HIV positive. You certainly aren't remotely considering that person's feelings. I mean, you don't have to... and you can be cold as shit should you want to be...

But yeah. If I have HIV and I'm doing all the treatments and I'm basically not infectious anymore, and you go from being interested to not interested when I tell you I'm HIV positive, your reaction is exactly what I've been dreading and it's going to make me feel like shit.

It would be your choice to make. But it certainly wasn't done out of any empathy for me.

 

[Azalean]

Wait so he engaged in unprotected sex knowing he was HIV positive, but didn't disclose this to partners?

Isn't that manslaughter?

The OP says he did inform his partners of his HIV.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

No. There's no laws in the US against this. He's a massive asshole.

I don't think this is correct

 

[plagiarize]

The OP says he did inform his partners of his HIV.

One of his partners is saying she had no idea he was HIV positive.

 

[toythatkills]

Source

Cal. Health and Safety Code § 120291
Felony
Any person who exposes another to HIV by engaging in unprotected sexual activity (anal or vaginal intercourse without a condom) when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV, is guilty of a felony. A person's knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, is not sufficient to prove specific intent.

That's such weird wording. So if someone has HIV and has sex with someone without disclosing it and transmits the disease, it's a valid defence to say "well I didn't infect them on purpose."

 

[CDX]

The OP says he did inform his partners of his HIV.

You must have missed this post because one of his sexual partners claims he didn't inform her of his status.

 

[GregLombardi]

No. There's no laws in the US against this. He's a massive asshole.

Some states have laws. Some do not. Depends on the state.

 

[E92 M3]

Again, you have the choice... but yes, I think it is cold as hell to choose not to sleep with someone solely because they are HIV positive. You certainly aren't remotely considering that person's feelings. I mean, you don't have to... and you can be cold as shit should you want to be...

But yeah. If I have HIV and I'm doing all the treatments and I'm basically not infectious anymore, and you go from being interested to not interested when I tell you I'm HIV positive, your reaction is exactly what I've been dreading and it's going to make me feel like shit.

It would be your choice to make. But it certainly wasn't done out of any empathy for me.

I don't think anyone can be guilt-tripped into feeling bad for abstaining to sleep with someone that has HIV. It is their absolute right and they shouldn't feel bad about it. You bet your ass I won't sleep with someone that has HIV. Don't care what the viral load is like.

 

[NoFaceNico]

I'm not sure if there have been any cases that really test this law yet, but you could definitely argue that *if* he is receiving proper treatment that he isn't contagious etc. He should have informed everyone, and I don't doubt that we'll hear more about this, but it's going to interesting should this get anywhere near a court room, if indeed there isn't already precedent.

Certainly, what he has done is nothing like the felony charge, unless you are suggesting that he was intentionally trying to infect people.

It's hard to find statistics, and when I found something that was anything close to it the fine print explains why. There's no simple way of looking up or tracking all HIV related prosecutions in all of the states that have these laws. But according to this source, they came up with around 200 prosecutions between 2008 and 2013. It's an incredibly small number, only about 40 cases per year on average and no clue how many of those 200 were from California but still, there are some prosecutions taking place.

 

[NoFaceNico]

That's such weird wording. So if someone has HIV and has sex with someone without disclosing it and transmits the disease, it's a valid defence to say "well I didn't infect them on purpose."

The wording is strange, but they have to try to anticipate even stranger real world scenarios.

What if the infected person was wrongfully informed that the person they were going to have sex with was already HIV positive? The infected person might see no need for protection because the other person can't get infected twice, so they anticipate no harm. But then the victim gets infected but the perpetrator had no intent to transmit the disease and as fucked up as it is, a misdemeanor might be more appropriate if this person didn't have the intent to spread the disease.

 

[Principate]

The OP says he did inform his partners of his HIV.

Judging by the statement of his GF no less he most probably lied, because it's a criminal offense in California. For him to publically announce this knowing it, the blackmailing must have gotten really, really bad.

 

[Father_Brain]

I don't think anyone can be guilt-tripped into feeling bad for abstaining to sleep with someone that has HIV. It is their absolute right and they shouldn't feel bad about it. You bet your ass I won't sleep with someone that has HIV. Don't care what the viral load is like.

You have a right to decide that, just as other people have a right to tell you that that kind of absolutism is founded in irrational, unscientific fear.

 

[Principate]

You have a right to decide that, just as other people have a right to tell you that that kind of absolutism is founded in irrational, unscientific fear.

Well the chance is really low, but to say it's irrational is honestly quite silly. I mean lets be honest here if you don't want to contract HIV, sleeping with someone that has it is not a smart decision not matter how you look at as there still is a chance, and it's a permanent disease.

 

[E92 M3]

You have a right to decide that, just as other people have a right to tell you that that kind of absolutism is founded in irrational, unscientific fear.

LOL

Irrational to not test fate and play the lottery? Why engage in risky behavior when even when the statistics are working in my favor?

Let's see:

Chance of getting HIV when sleeping with someone that has it: greater than 0%
Chance of getting HIV when abstaining from sexual activity: 0%

Is math not science?