“[Nick Clayton] Rhoades, 34, pleaded guilty to failing to disclose his HIV status prior to having sex with a Cedar Falls man June 26. The two men exchanged messages in an Internet chat room before meeting at the victim’s home. Although the contact was consensual, the victim, who has since tested negative for HIV, said Rhoades denied he had any sexually transmitted infections. The charge against Rhoades stands because he failed to disclose his HIV status prior to having sex with the man.” [WCFcourier.com]
Iowa Man Gets 25 Years For Not Telling Sex Partner He Had HIV
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Sceth
Excellent. If you provide a product (yourself) to be consumed, you must make hazards known.
galefan2004
Two sides:
1) If you fail to disclose your status when you know you are positive then you should go to jail. However, I don’t know how you can argue a loss here what-so-ever if the partner keeps testing negative and its hard to call it a crime without a loss, it would have been different if the partner tested positive.
2) If you don’t know that you are + then you are in no way legally obligated to divulge it, so the backlash could be that it makes more sense to never know if you are positive or not. Therefore, you could use this information in a rational decision never to get tested.
strumpetwindsock
Wow.
Is 25 years a normal sentence for attempted murder? That’s about the harshest comparison I can think of, and depending on the circumstances it could have been more like manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death.
There was a fellow in Ontario who was convicted of murder for infecting two women, one of whom died. But 25 years seems a bit harsh for a case like this.
I don’t buy the argument that people won’t get tested. Whether they do or do not there should still be consequences for dangerous acts like this if malice can be shown. That said, I think the bar needs to be set fairly high to make sure people don’t go to jail for innocent transmission, because I’m sure a law like this could be used to discriminate against people.
Addisondlls
Wow, this is absolutely ridiculous. Reading the article from the Cedar Hill paper, he will have to register as a sex offender (WTF), receives a lifetime of parole and is required to attend a sex offender based program. HHHMMMM Since when does casual sex between to consenting adults equal a sexual offense? As a HIV+ man I find this offensive and very alarming. This just adds to the presently growing HIV Stigma in gay society. I guess the “victim” (I use this term loosely) who had consentual sex with only asking the partner if he was “clean” has nothing better to do with his life? He was the one trolling for sex online and he found it. I have no sympathy for men who meet up with perfect strangers for sex and expect complete honesty. Rule of thumb, if you have casual sex, always assume everyone you sleep with is infected with HIV and/or other STDs. Protect yourself! It’s that simple! If you don’t know how, educate yourself.
B
Can we please recognize that the “victim” takes no responsibility for his own actions? Any time you have a sexual partner, especially a casual partner; you are putting yourself at risk. This man was not forced to have sex. That being said, do I find it deplorable that the man lied about his status, yes, but this is the risk we all take. It may not be the best comparison but will heterosexuals start suing each other for lying about being on the pill? It’s a horrible situation and the man should be punished but 25 years in jail! Come on
Jaroslaw
Let’s just say it: 25 years is a homophobic response. that is way too long considering vicious, sadistic murderers get less.
He should get say a year, and if the “victim” whom I agree shares responsibility turns up with AIDS later, then give him 5 or 10 more.
galefan2004
@strumpetwindsock: The partner is still testing NEGATIVE, meaning that at the very least this should have been attempted involuntary manslaughter. My guess is that it was an activist judge attempting to prove a point, and if the partner in question is still testing negative at the time of the appeal it will be very hard to actually make this sentence stand up to the appeal process.
sampson
25 years too long, though he does deserve some time. The other guys is also responsible though, you should wear a condom no matter what the person tells you
promiscuityISbad
There are quite a few blogs currently that describe the bareback exploits of their authors. In more than one I have read about the author having had unprotected sex (as a top) with strangers without disclosing his HIV+ status, even when asked. There have been boastful posts about how the blog-author refused to use condoms even when asked by the bottom.
Apparently this is called “stealthing”.
On the flip side, there are also blogs about bottoms, who are HIV- (so they say/think) who deliberately have sex with HIV+ men for the “thrill” while still hoping to stay negative. These men are called “bug chasers”.
I think men who do “stealthing” should go to prison for a very long time; and men who are “chasers” should be quarantined, given the enormous cost to society due to their lack of self-esteem and irresponsibility.
galefan2004
@Addisondlls: Does having to tell all your partners about your status bother you? That seems to be the basis of your whole argument. You seem to be saying that you shouldn’t have to tell them if they don’t straight out ask you. Then if they don’t straight out ask you then it is their fault because they are stupid for not out right asking you.
What you fail to realize is that this law has nothing to do with HIV. It has everything to do with personal responsibility. It is like handing someone a loaded weapon while telling them its not loaded and encouraging them to put it to their head and pull the trigger. Of course, they deserve part of the blame for trusting you and being stupid enough to pull the trigger, but not as much as you do for neglecting your personal responsibility.
strumpetwindsock
@Addisondlls:
Actually I was also wondering what the actual charge was. And I was asking about the severity because I don’t know if that would be considered an overly-severe sentence in the states. It certainly would be in Canada.
Up here knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their knowledge is considered aggravated sexual assault. So yes, it would get you on a sex offender registry.
(and I don’t know if it’s federal or provincial, so it may vary from province to province).
Off the top of my head, the only cases I am aware of which have gone to trial here have been M to F contact.
galefan2004
@sampson: You champion a condom like its a life saver. The truth is, condoms are not fail proof. If used 100% properly, condoms are still only 90% effective. I’m not comfortable basing my life on a 10% possibility that I will end up with a life altering disease that will eventually kill me. The better option is that you don’t do random hook ups and that you know your partners well and then still use protection (or not if you completely trust your partner), but take into account that protected or not every single time you have sex (even with partners you trust) there is always a risk that you will contact HIV. Its simply risk versus reward.
strumpetwindsock
@galefan2004:
Yeah I know. I agree. Though it’s hard to say what will happen on appeal. Usually that just concerns procedural errors. Unless things are different in that jurisdiction they can’t revisit the case itself.
Addisondlls
@galefan2004: @
I always share my status with sexual partners and potential partners. I am strictly stating that it is both parties responsibility to take precautions and protect themselves. I am sorry you think that this has nothing to do with HIV, but this is the issue at hand.
galefan2004
@promiscuityISbad: There are also + parties where people have sex with as many HIV+ people as possible because they think they will eventually get HIV anyways. This all came to light in about 2003-2005 when it was mentioned in QAF.
galefan2004
@strumpetwindsock: Unless the area had a particular code governing the situation, my guess would be that the charge would have been either attempted involuntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Yes, 25 years is MORE than extreme. The average sentence for involuntary manslaughter is normally 5 years at the most and is often suspended in favor of probation with stipulations.
Addisondlls
@strumpetwindsock:
With that being said, would there even be a case if the both individuals never discussed each others status? But when the “negative” partner found out that the other individual was positive down the road would this be considered aggravated assault then?
This boils down to responsibility, not something that should be handled in a court of law.
ggreen
Another tale of a “victim” being an innocent bystander in his own life. I mean really what could he do? Demand the other guy put on a condom or not have sex with him. Oh the inhumanity of personal responsibility.
galefan2004
@strumpetwindsock: They can revisit the case itself if there is new evidence presented. Rather the victims status of HIV negative after future testing presents as new evidence or not is up to judicial discretion.
strumpetwindsock
@Addisondlls:
You are right.
But unfortunately when it comes to assigning criminal responsibility that has to fall to the person who fails to disclose his or her status. As well there can be other circumstances such as coercion, or assumption of monogamy.
galefan2004
@Addisondlls: HIV is not the issue at hand, personal responsibility is. That is the whole basis of involuntary manslaughter (that you knowingly bucked personal responsibility and that led to the death of a person). I agree that it is the responsibility of both parties to make sure they are protected and that, even more importantly, they know for sure the status of their partner and that they can trust their partner. People that have sex with multiple partners they hardly know and that they don’t know the status of that just expect the condom to protect them are asking for issues (especially considering the fact that there are STDs such as Herpes, and I believe genital warts, as well that condoms have no chance of protecting you from).
Addisondlls
@strumpetwindsock:
I think GGREEN put it rather well.
“Another tale of a “victim” being an innocent bystander in his own life. ”
It boils down to, what are you willing to risk for one night with a stranger. Be responsible, own up to your own actions.
galefan2004
@Addisondlls: I 100% agree with you that it really does boil down to what you are willing to risk for one night of gratification with a complete and utter stranger. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that the male sluts that care about nothing more than sexual gratification, are often willing to risk it all.
Shannon
The guy had three std’s and lied twice. The “I was fucked up on liquor and pills” defense probably didn’t help his cause any. I’m glad justice was served in this case and the gay community is probably a little bit safer because of it.
Huh
@promiscuityISbad:
Quarantined? You freaking Nazi! People should take the responsibility to have safe sex and people with hiv should not be stigmatized and “quarantined”. You are a disgusting person.
lemonpiper
It doesn’t mention if protection was used or not. That makes a big difference, I think.
Fitz
I don’t like this one bit– I think it discourages testing. Plausible deniability and all that.
HIV isn’t Immanent Death, so I think that was a bad judgment and easily appealed. Medical professionals are not required to inform sex partners of Poz people they way that they are of someone who plans to go home and shoot someone, for example.
Dennis
The article is unclear on what sex acts occured, and I beleive this makes a tremendous difference.
Uh, has anybody ever heard of “safe sex”?…new concept I know, but maybe it will catch on. If you are neg and want to stay that way, trusting a casual trick with your health is not exactly wise.
He’s absolutely WRONG, and deserves punishment if the asshole LIED about his HIV status and then engaged in unprotected fucking, or came in his partner, etc…but get real, postive and negative sero-discordant sex partners have had MILLIONS of sexual encounters over the course of time, without resulting in infection. Expecting honest disclosure for every sexual hook-up is living in a fantasy world.
If you are neg and sexually active in any ‘quantity’, at some time, you will be have sex with someone who either IS positive or “thinks” they are negative (because they have no ‘proof’ otherwise) but who is in reality, postive.
Sorry, that’s just reality…
TANK
I think it should be the responsibility of the POZ person to inform his sexual partners of his serostatus. I realize that it’s the responsibility of both to practice safe sex, but given the cost to the CLEAN partner (aids, for chrissakes…despite what people say, it’s a miserable fucking disease that will eventually kill you in a degrading painful way), a bigger responsibility based upon the larger potential for harm goes on aids dude.
As to 25 years…maybe a bit draconian, but I can’t say I against it.
Rudy
@Addisondlls: The arguments here are now twenty years old.
At first gay organizations were almost exclusively focused on the rights of the infected. Gay sex was not legal at that time, and the disease, besides being almost always fatal, was also a stigma of being gay, so the reality of bias against the HIV+ could mean loss of your job and second-class medical treatment.
Happily, times have changed.
While I don’t dispute the common sense need and duty to protect yourself, the old policies had the effect of removing the carrier from any moral or ethical responsibilities. I knew people who did not disclose, who lied to themselves that their partners were probably infected anyway – I remember one man, amazingly still beautiful throughout much of his disease, who lied to and infected people to the end. His lifelong friends who’d been unable to stop him actually celebrated his death.
Now I don’t want to diminish the brave and enobling way much of the gay community came together as a result of this disease, but many of us know people who became monsters as well.
Restraining those monsters would not have ended the epidemic, but if we’d looked at stopping the disease to be everyone’s responsibility, there might not have had to have been a half million deaths either.
ggreen
@TANK: Yeah because any one with HIV is DIRTY. “MORAN”
Chad
Interesting, the article doesn’t mention if they used condoms or not. Here’s the text of IA’s HIV criminal law. The way the law reads, you have to be exposed to bodily fluids.
A person commits criminal transmission of HIV if the person, knowing of his or her HIV positive status:
1) engages in intimate contact with another person;
2) transfers, donates or provides blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for administration (e.g., transfusion) to another person;
3) or in any way transfers to another person any nonsterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used by the person infected with HIV.
“Intimate contact” means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of HIV. Actual transmission of HIV is not a necessary element of this crime. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to HIV knew of the other person’s HIV positive status, knew that the action of exposure could result in transmission of HIV, and consented to the action of exposure with that knowledge.
TANK
@ggreen:
It’s just an expression. They’re infected…don’t get all sensitive. Any argument, though?
Chad
By the way… HIV criminal laws don’t protect anyone. All they do is increase stigma and decrease testing. According to the CDC, only 15% of HIV+ individuals end up infecting someone else. The vast majority of HIV infections come from the 25% of people who have HIV and don’t know it. Disclosure is a non-issue. What good does disclosure do when you’re partner is HIV+ but thinks he’s HIV-? The only way you can protect yourself is to always use a condom, period.
GPW
@Chad: Thank you Chad, I was beginning to think everyone here was STUPID!
TANK
Blah blah blah. People who knowingly infect others–or attempt to–should be locked away. They are a public health threat. It’s a separate topic to address the reasons for most new infections.
People who unknowingingly infect others should be penalized, too, in some way. Manslaughter is still against the law, and MSM should be tested regularly and know their status.
Booth
I work in the HIV/AIDS field. It is very simple- It is illegal for a person who is knowingly HIV+ to not disclose their status to a sexual partner. The use of condoms is irrelevant in the legality of the issue.
Konrad
Lock him up and let it be a lesson to others.
Tony
If a man is crazy enough to have sex with an internet hookup and believes what he’s told then he’s very naive. Nobody deserves to get HIV but he willingly had sex with this guy. Was a gun put to his head? I don’t think so. And condoms don’t work 100% in preventing pregnancy so they’re not going to work 100% of the time for HIV. Get into a monogamous relationship and never worry again.