Missouri Man Arrested, Charged With Allegedly Failing To Inform His Boyfriend About His HIV-Positive Status

A Stoddard County, Missouri man has been charged with failing to inform sex partners, including his ex boyfriend, about his HIV-status before intercourse.

David Lee Mangum, 36, reportedly told police he had at least 300 unprotected sexual encounters with people he met online or in parks since he was diagnosed with HIV in 2003, reports CNN. Mangum was arrested after his former partner, who has tested positive for HIV, told police that Mangum had lied to him about his status. Mangum later told police that between 50 and 60 of his partners lived in Stoddard County.

Under Missouri law, knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent is a felony  that can bring incarceration of up to 15 years, while infecting someone can bring a life term. The Missouri law is one of a growing number of similar laws across the nation, leading to a huge increase in prosecutions. The laws are considered draconian because they place the onus entirely on allegedly HIV-positive people to report their status rather than on a negotiation between both partners. They also may discourage some people at high risk from getting tested for fear of prosecution.

Watch CNN’s report on the arrest below.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #davidleemangum #hiv stories and more


  • mykelb

    When HPV transmission is criminalized, then I will find this type of law equitable. Otherwise, its a farce.

  • 2eo

    Good, jail him until he dies.

  • Katbox


  • Fitz

    But HIV isn’t a big deal! I can tell by all the hot 22 year olds on
    Scruff and Grinder who want a Raw top daddy, and how bust Truck and Powerhouse get.

  • Jake357

    Caveat emptor anyone? I’m not saying this man isn’t despicable, but it takes two (and in some cases six) to tango.

  • 2eo

    @Jake357: Doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny, thankfully in court it doesn’t either.

  • Jake357

    Oh, now I understand. The poor innocents.

  • Scribe38

    If your partner asks and you know and purposely lie and try to infect them that’s attempted murder. Fuck him

  • dpinvogue

    OK he’s in Missouri… that’s a special brand of backward… but why the fuck do people keep on lying about their status? It means they are 1) delusional 2) ashamed about having a disease 3) refusing to own their disease… It is a disease…yes a complex one that requires constant supervision and ties the person to a medical regime for the rest of his or her life, but it is a disease. Do people still react to HIV status the same way they did in 1980? There are many people who are HIV+ who he could hook up with, use protection and have a relationship and live well. If anyone says … no I won’t fuck you because you have a disease, lying about it will make it better?

  • Tookietookie123

    This man gives the LGBT community a bad name.

  • offbeatoh86

    @Scribe38: I agree! Intentionally exposing another person to HIV is inexcusable.

  • Katbox

    @Fitz: “But HIV isn’t a big deal!”
    Sarcasm. Nice.
    $22,000 a year for meds is no laughing matter.
    Those twinks better wise up.

  • Dxley

    What the fuck do you think sleeping with a guy with no protection? It took me two years to finally bareback with my boyfriend, but I still take tests. Just to be on the safe side. It looks like nobody wants to wear a condom. Some people are fucked up, especially those 17, 18, 19 year old twinks who would do anything for a dick. Enjoy your Aids, boys!

  • davegun2

    So wait. I’m only half as ugly as this asshole, why can’t I get 300 guys, and I won’t give them HIV. Shit!

  • Really_000

    I cant believe some of you are making this a big deal. I know countless gay men who are positive and have infected countless of people-all the time! And yes now these sex apps have probably even doubled those numbers. You guys ever heard of adult bookstores/arcades or maybe gay bath houses? I am sure some of these dudes spread at least a quarter of the virus on a Friday or Saturday night at any one of those places.

  • jacobmcNLR

    Many states do have laws that criminalize knowingly transmitting other STI’s. The biggest problem I see with this law is that it discourages people to get tested. You can’t knowingly transmit HIV if you don’t know you have it, can you? Just saying “it takes two to tango” is a bad argument, although I completely agree that there should be some responsibility placed on both (or more) individuals involved. Sentencing someone to prison for this is something that is ridiculous, I think, unless this guy maliciously intended to harm these people (it may have been fear that opted him not to tell his partners, still, not a good excuse, I know). Maybe he should be responsible for paying for 50% of the medical bills for those he infected, or at least those who know he infected them. This law is bullshit, but the issue at hand is complex. Surely we can think of ideas to make this better, right?

  • jeff4justice

    @Fitz: And don’t forget all the vids on Xtube affirming young gay men as cool if they take a condomless dick in the ass.

  • SFHarry

    This seems like a no brainer to me. Don’t have unsafe sex with people. You have to assume they are positive, may not know they are positive or possibly lying about their status. You can still have lots of fun sex just don’t do unsafe things. Unless you are being raped you the power to ask that protection is used.

  • Tone

    I am responsible for my own sexual safety, not the person I sleep with. Sure it’s sleazy to lie about your status, but at the same time it’s damned stupid to take someone at their word and then bareback with them. Criminalization and harsh penalties are sure fire ways to deter people from being tested.

  • Carlton Raines

    Anyone who has unprotected casual sex deserves any risk/disease attached to it.So much money has been spent on educating straight and gay people on safe sex.
    No one with a brain has unprotected sex, The only victims here are the partner if [he was under the belief that the relationship was monogamous, And the health services that are going to have to pay for all of this treatment from now till they die.
    In this day and age, unless raped, or abused ,you use safe sex if you care about yourself, And clearly 300 people don’t care about their own health or their loved one’s

  • Carlton Raines

    @Tookietookie123: Your right, All the Churches will be waving this around

  • Cam

    @Really_000: said…

    I cant believe some of you are making this a big deal. I know countless gay men who are positive and have infected countless of people-all the time!


    I always love the anti-gay trolls that come in here reading from their NOM or Exodus pamphlets.

  • Deepdow


    Totally an anti-gay troll.

    Hey troll, did you forget about that incident a few years ago (in Missouri I think!) when a FEMALE prostitute was arrested after having confessed to infecting hundred of people with HIV?


  • HirsuteOne

    I can’t believe that 300 people actually lined up to have sex with this guy. The bar must be set very low in Missouri.

  • the other Greg

    These laws generally make no distinction among TYPES of sexual encounters. Most of the laws don’t even care if there was disclosure or not (looks like Missouri’s law at least makes that distinction). Many of these laws criminalize ANY sex, however protected and disclosed, by any HIV+ person, even with a spouse.

    I used to like sex in parks, in younger days. But when anyone ever suggested fucking me WITHOUT a condom, I assumed he was crazy, and very likely poz (AND untreated for it), and run!

    Barebacking is essentially the only way to get it.

    If he had oral sex as a top, the risk to the bottom was less than getting struck by lightning.

    If he had oral sex as a bottom with any of these 300, there was no risk whatsoever. But the law doesn’t care and stupidly pretends there was a risk when there wasn’t. (Oooh, it’s GAY sex so it must be dangerous!)

    @Jake357: Yeah, the poor innocents! If someone WANTS to get fucked “raw,” they have some responsibility for what happens.

  • Really_000

    @Cam: Not anti-gay or a troll :-)
    Although I guess the truth does hurt huh boys? Is there something you need to confess?

  • EManhattan

    Condoms and gloves keep you safe, but believing partners or strangers who say “I’m negative” is pretty worthless.

    I’ve been having sex happily with poz men (some of whom thought they were negative) for a very long time, and I’m still negative, because anything going in my butt has to be covered. That has meant passing up sex with a few hot men who only bareback – but so what? There are lots of sexy men in the world who are happy to use condoms and gloves.

  • EManhattan

    And to the guys who claim this guy is ugly – haven’t you figured out yet that sexiness and good looks is a very individual evaluation? And that sexy and handsome are not at all the same thing? There is no objective standard for this stuff, so get over your conviction that your opinion about looks is right for everyone, or that everyone agrees with it – it’s only right for you.

    He’s got nice eyebrows, and nice lips – and who knows what he’d look like when he smiles? This is not defending his appalling lies, which, it sounds like, included telling his partner he was monogamous – but his looks are attractive to a large number of men.

  • the other Greg

    It’s important to note also that laws like this actually discourage people from getting tested at all. Missouri may be a rare exception, since apparently he knew for sure. (Or his knowing may not be relevant to the law.) But with most of these laws they can only be prosecuted if they “know” they’re poz, so they never get tested, so they can never get prosecuted.

    @EManhattan: Great comment! Glad you’re having responsible fun.

    And guessing your partners are also responsible enough to get properly treated, to the point where they’re “undetectable” (HIV lingo… though I always have this image of them putting on Frodo’s ring and becoming invisible).

  • Deepdow


    What truth? That there are deranged gay and straight people out there? Duh. But to make it seem like every gay male engages in this type of behavior is reckless and stupid. Also your use of hyperbole renders any “truth” of yours into a lie. You’re obviously an anti-gay demon or otherwise you would have not commented so disgustingly. Get lost.

  • damon459

    None of these 300 would have been put at risk if they had insisted on condoms, sorry but you have only yourself to blame in age of information and free condoms.

  • dpinvogue

    Dxley said –

    “What the fuck do you think sleeping with a guy with no protection? It took me two years to finally bareback with my boyfriend, but I still take tests. Just to be on the safe side. It looks like nobody wants to wear a condom. Some people are fucked up, especially those 17, 18, 19 year old twinks who would do anything for a dick. Enjoy your Aids, boys!”

    Are you always this superior to your brothers and sisters in the LGBT community? Yes, these days it is unfathomable why people still take risks and end up with HIV. Yes, you are doing the right thing by taking tests etc., but remember, there but for the grace of God go you and anyone else who thinks they are immune to he spread of the disease. How about contributing to your community and helping out in your local HIV/AIDS-awareness group, and help those PLWAs and find out what makes their lives utterly frustrating. Break down the growing barrier between the those living with the disease and those who are not yet touched by it. I am constantly amazed by those who say they are gay, who take precautions against the disease but who are so navel-gazing they want nothing to do with those whose lives have been devastated by the disease. You might learn a thing or two, have your attitudes adjusted and not be so cavalier.

  • David Aventura

    I have no sympathy for these 300 men, or any other man who willingly puts himself at risk for HIV. I do wish all gay men were required to take an HIV test right now. The results would be shocking.

  • moraloral35

    @David Aventura: Most gay men are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. It’s just that a small minority of gay men have very high numbers of partners and also engage in extremely risky behaviors. Also, the gene variant that most African Americans have make them much more susceptible to HIV: many black guys on the DL actually get HIV from their black female partners. Including black men in statistics unfairly inflates the percentage of men who have sex with men who have HIV, because many contracted it from the hetero community and spread it to the gay community.

    In cities with good public health programs, like Atlanta, you see HIV prevalences of 6%, which neatly coincide with the percentage of men who have sex with men who report having over 100 partners a year. We should probably write off the hyper-promiscuous as being doomed to contact HIV, but they are the exception, not the rule.

  • jacobmcNLR

    @moraloral35: Can you provide any peer-reviewed studies that provide evidence that gay men are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals? I couldn’t find any, but I’m not saying they don’t exist.

  • Really_000

    @jacobmcNLR: Jacob to use the word “gay man” is complicated. There is a small fraction of men who identify openly as ONLY gay. I work with youth for a mental health facility and it is quite common now for males to not identify as either completely gay or straight, but to be “questioning” or “bi”. It is the bisexual men who are changing the dynamics of HIV/AIDS and sexual identity in general. Although not specifically what you are looking for,this is an interesting article that shows how non-heterosexual men spread HIV/AIDS.

  • jacobmcNLR

    @Really_000: In your previous comment, you say “most gay men are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.” How were you defining “gay men” here? You go on to say that, “it’s just a small number of minority of gay men have very high numbers of partners and engage in extremely risky behaviors.” So my question, which I think was confused (I can ask things in a weird way), is where is that published number?

    It’s an interesting question to me, are homosexual men more promiscuous than heterosexual men? Logic tells me that heterosexual men can not be as promiscuous as homosexual men, not because they don’t want to, but because there are too many negative consequences for a woman hooking up with a man. Dan Savage explains this well: In fact, it seems online heterosexual hook-up sites often get shut down because it turns out there’s not that many actual women looking for hook-ups (, likely for the reasons Dan describes above. I should note that I don’t think promiscuity is a bad thing as long as one is taking the proper precautions to be safe.

    We really need published peer-reviewed studies, more than one hopefully, to really nail down the answer to whether homosexual men (as defined by the authors) are more promiscuous than heterosexual men, but it doesn’t look like that data exist…at least not currently.

  • jacobmcNLR

    @Really_000: I just realized you were not the person I was asking the question to before…sorry.

Comments are closed.