sex crimes

Stuart McDonald Guilty Of Spreading HIV To Other Men Through Unprotected Sex

Stuart McDonald (pictured right), a man accused of violating South Australia’s Public Health Act by infecting eight men with HIV through unprotected sex from 2005-07, was found guilty on two counts (and acquitted of the others) by a jury. McDonald, of Adelaide, faces sentencing next year and remains in custody until then. McDonald was the top, and met the men — some of whom “thought” McDonald was using a condom — on Gaydar, in public parks, and a a boarding house.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #aids #australia #crime stories and more


  • McMike

    Prosecuting men for this is wrong IMO. If you’re having sex YOU need to make sure your partner is wearing a condom. If you end up having unprotected sex and catch AIDS it is YOUR fault since no one was holding a gun to your head.

  • Fitz

    @McMike: 100% cosign with you. If it’s your ass, and your immune system, you need to be in charge of it. VERY worried about the this path of prosecuting people for sex.

  • Jake

    He’s hot. So beefy. He looks like he’d give you a hot rugged, rough fuck.

  • scott ny'er

    @Fitz: why be worried about it… if ur hiv+ just inform ur partner. Ur not liable then.

    @McMike: If ur not disclosing it or even lying about ur hiv+ status it’s not my fault. Maybe I trusted u and thought we were in a monogomous relationship. Just disclose ur status.

  • orpheus_lost

    @McMike: If a person knows they have small pox but purposely breathes on you and you become infected because the vaccine didn’t work, is it your fault since “no one was holding a gun to your head” asking you to breath around the diseased person – even though you didn’t know they were infected?

    Every person has a right to expect that they can live without being put at unnecessary risk – even when it comes to anonymous sex. If someone knowingly has an incurable disease it is incumbent upon them to announce the risk of infection to others before engaging in acts that could cause transference.

    What’s so difficult about that?

  • Jack

    If he knew he was positive and didn’t inform his partners, his actions constituted battery from a legal standpoint. He deserves punishment.

  • Kevin

    @orpheus_lost: Because it gives people a legal incentive not to get tested in the first place? I’d rather have a few assholes running around trying to infect others than a whole society of men afraid that knowing their status will get them arrested after they make a drunken mistake.

    In this case, these people decided to have unprotected sex with a man whose status they didn’t know. That action carries with it a chance of infection. The fact that this man happened to know his status doesn’t mean that they had a right to that information. If they really cared, they’d have made sure of his status or not had unprotected sex.

  • redball

    @Kevin: “these people decided to have unprotected sex with a man whose status they didn’t know.”

    What about bottoming with someone who takes off the condom *without* your knowing? That is slimy, and to me certainly legally dubious, behavior on the part of the top. According to this article, that is precisely what McDonald allegedly did:

    As a side note: Stuart McDonald must be an awfully common name in Australia, but…is this him (top pic)? Kinda resembles Queerty’s pic above

  • Kevin

    @redball: One could make the argument that they should have been paying closer attention, but yes, that particular allegation does make me a little uncomfortable. I suppose you could somewhat equate it to slipping someone a roofie; yes, of course people SHOULD be aware of what ends up in their drink but the attempt is still illegal. But on the other hand I still think there is some danger in a legal code where there is an incentive NOT to get tested in the first place (since in these cases ignorance would be a defense, unlike most illegal acts).

    This gets even worse if you follow it to its logical conclusion. I mean, even if a person is upfront about their status, does that somehow absolve them of legal liability? I mean you can’t stab someone even with their consent, so I fail to see how this would be any different. Continuing this, there are still risks involved even when protection is used, from slippage and spillage to simple condom misuse. I’m not normally one for “slippery slope” arguments but it’s hard to follow this one all that far before you see that the endgame is the criminalization of HIV+ individuals having sex with HIV- people under any circumstance.

    This guy is a predator and a monster. He should by all means be ostracized from the community. I’m just not sure that the law can adequately protect us from people like him without trampling too much on our rights. The only real protection comes from vigilance, education, and self-reliance.

  • merkin

    A century ago a woman who knowingly had typhoid refused to stop working in the food-service industry and subsequently infected dozens of people with the terrible disease. Eventually she had to be arrested and put in permanent quarrantine. If you are HIV+ and you know it, and you lie to your partners, you should face some sort of consequences. Yes, everyone has to take responsibility for their own safety, but knowingly infecting people is just a public health hazard pure and simple.

  • Daez

    @McMike: That is such crap. If you are KNOWINGLY HIV+ and you have sex with others without telling them then you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (at the very least it is equal to involuntary manslaughter).

    That doesn’t forgive the people that didn’t require this man to have safe sex, and how the hell can you “think” a man is wearing a condom. Its not like its quite obvious when they aren’t, unless you are in an altered state of reality at the time.

    @Kevin: That is quite a stretch. Most people are going to do the right thing. If you know you are HIV+ and don’t disclose it then you deserve to be punished. Trying to blame the victim is insane. Your encounter ABSOLUTELY has the right to know if you are carrying any diseases. You can’t seriously believe that they had no right to that information. You are seriously willing to forgive this guy for fucking up someone’s life just so he could fuck them bareback? That is despicable.

    Also, the statues absolutely absolve any guilt you have if you can prove that your partner knew about your status. This is not a stabbing case. This is a case that mostly resembles criminal negligence.

    Also, the law has been protecting us from people like him without going overboard for quite some time here in the states. Multiple people in the USA have been prosecuted under very similar laws, and so far no one has gone on an HIV+ witch hunt to get every last one of them.

  • Doug Morrison

    How can anyone defend someone who deposits poisen into another person knowing it could kill him? You men who are positive should get over your hang ups about condoms and use them when you know you can infect someone!

  • Fitz

    @scott ny’er: Not worried about self disclosure.. worried about the concept of government involvement in sexual decisions between adults.

  • Kevin

    @Daez: Yes, at present, the statutes do say that informing your partner of your status absolves you of guilt. I’m saying that, if we follow them to their logical conclusion, they shouldn’t. And I’m not forgiving him for anything, nor am I saying that he is anything less than despicable. Jesus, when are people going to get it through their heads that “you’ve done something awful” and “you’ve broken the law” don’t and shouldn’t always coincide exactly. He’s done something awful, he’s an awful person, and he karmically deserves anything he gets. I’m just leery of the state enforcing this kind of morality given the context that, again, this gives the chronically unsafe a legal incentive not to get tested.

  • drums

    You people blaming the victims are fucking insane. Yes, a woman *should* know better than to walk in an alley alone on a dark night if no one forced her to do it, but if she gets mugged or raped it’s not her FAULT. Yes, people *should* know to lock their cars and no one forced them to forget to lock them, but if their car gets stolen it’s still the THIEF’S FAULT.
    Stupidity or bad judgement isn’t a CRIME. Knowingly infecting someone IS.

  • ait10101

    I have generally negotiated safe sex. Meaning us a condom if the person has had an HIV warning, or has had sex with unknown people since he last had a test (remittnace period required). But if we have both had tests in the recent past, and no sex since then, with negative HIV tests in between, then I think that is safe sex. Complication: I got mononucleosis, which is far more communicatable than HIV. I did not communicate it to my partner, but it certainly affected my teaching ability that term (I teach second and first years at university), so it could have affected him, merely be a long kiss. We were lucky. I must say I told him, and his doctor told him not to have sex with me at all, to be safe. I am glad that he did not agree with this. I asked my doctor how one gets mono. He said you can get it from a fountain at school. Which makes sense for me, as I don’t have sex often, but do drink a lot of water. Does this make me a criminal? I hope not.

  • Ruhlmann

    @Jake: And HIV. Idiot!

Comments are closed.