A new report argues that Michael Johnson, the gay 23-year-old former college wrestler found guilty of knowingly exposing several men to HIV, faced an entirely stacked deck in his criminal trial.
Johnson, who also went by the name “Tiger Mandingo,” was convicted last May in the town of St. Charles under a Missouri law that makes it a crime for an HIV-positive person to have sex without first notifying their partner of their status.
Related: Star College Wrestler Accused Of “Recklessly Infecting” Several Men With HIV
As Buzzfeed reports, the all-straight, nearly all-white jury found Johnson guilty of five counts relating to his status. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison, and will have to register as a sex offender upon his release.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Related: Are Criminal HIV Transmission Laws Outdated?
But while arguments can be made about the law’s effectiveness at preventing the spread of the virus and whether criminalization is the appropriate strategy, some details of Johnson’s case paint a troubling picture of the supposed justice he faced in court.
Namely, the makeup of the small town jury:
- Of 51 potential jurors only one appeared to be “non-white.”
- Half said they believed being gay was a choice.
- Two-thirds intimated that they believed being gay was a sin.
- All the jurors identified as straight and HIV-negative.
- All the jurors said they believed HIV-positive people who do not inform their partners of their status should be prosecuted.
The lengthy report also presents several puzzling details of Johnson’s visibly nervous and fumbling defense attorney, Heather Donovan:
- She “clutched her notes, the papers sometimes shaking,” declined to make eye contact “with anyone” and “often stammered and stumbled over her words.”
- She declined to acknowledge Johnson for most of the trial, “even neglecting to greet him most times he was led into court.”
- She “brought up prejudice and racism rarely” while weeding out potential jurors during voir dire.
- She started crying while questioning a medical expert and accused the prosecutor of personally attacking her before telling the judge, “You are going to need to have a new trial in a few minutes because I am going to be disqualified.” Then she apparently stormed out of the courtroom.
- And most damning of all, she seemed to allow Johnson’s accusers to contradict themselves on the stand without attempting to impeach them.
“Getting 30 years for exposing someone to HIV is just silly,” Johnson’s former partner Filip Cukovic said. “It would be better for him if he’d killed someone instead.”
Related: HIV Positive Guys: Meet The New Criminal Class
Charles Pfoutz, one of Johnson’s accusers whose testimony did not lead to a conviction, also didn’t think Johnson “deserved 30 years” and should instead have gotten “like in California, six months to a year.” In a phone interview with Buzzfeed in October, Pfoutz said he initially told the prosecutor, “It’s fifty-fifty. I’m responsible, he’s responsible.”
Daniel Salmeron
The sentence was ridiculous but the fact that he was found guilty I don’t think is questionable
Realitycheck
Can he appeal, is Obama interested in issuing a pardon since no one got infected?
Joe Eugene
If you infect somebody with HIV, they’ve consented to it by having unsafe sex with you. They should know better and take responsibility for their own health choices. The safe approach is to presume that every partner has HIV and other STIs and to act accordingly. If you don’t do that, you’ve got no room to complain, unless somebody actually uses a hypodermic to inject you with infected blood. Where is the responsibility of the “victim?”
AtticusBennett
what we have here is the double-whammy of homophobia and racism. 30 years. does this happen to whites, and straights, in the same situation? no. not it does not.
HELL – we’ve had straight white men who raped children get no actual sentences! that appalling rich man in Delaware, who raped his own three-year-old, and got no prison sentence, because the judge said “he won’t fare well in prison”.. uhhh WHA?!?
folks, please read
http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/a-black-body-on-trial-the-conviction-of-hiv-positive-tiger-m#.gde1LjdQg
dean3000
Yay America spreading democracy around the world. You guys have the worst society at least Isis are honest with their barbarism
Stache
@Realitycheck: Actually he did infect one partner. A partner who was equal in making that decision and should own it.
Anyone that doesn’t believe that homophobia and these laws are one in the same just needs to look a this.
Stache
Not saying he doesn’t deserve punishment. 30 years is punishment for being gay by a jury of bigots though.
William Mc Gregor
This is a travesty of justice! This would not fly if those 2/3 found him guilty because he’s black! The verdict should be thrown out!
Masc Pride
No. He’s not a victim, and he’s where he deserves to be. He has no one to blame but himself. He wasn’t on trial for homosexuality. He was on trial for exposing people to a deadly virus. Bias against gays and blacks happens nationwide, so how about don’t go around your city committing crimes? I have little sympathy for criminals who are treated or sentenced “unfairly”.
Considering a lot of black women are infected by men that are less than honest with them, I totally bet a jury of black women would’ve arrived at the same verdict. Considering “slut-shaming” and r cism are sensitive topics that often bring out the worst in this community, would a jury of gays really be any less biased towards this guy?
Biases exist. Don’t commit crimes.
Stache
@Masc Pride: Well, in that case Charlie Sheen is going to be facing life in Prison. However, we know that’s not even remotely going to happen.
Brian JC Kneeland
it certainly wasn’t a jury of his peers was it?
JerseyMike
You get less time for being a child molester.. This trial was total bullsh!t.. I really don’t think anyone should get any time for not telling.. We are adults and we have know about HIV for as long as most of us have been born. If you decide to have unprotected sex with someone, what happens to you in your fault.. we make decisions everyday concerning our health.. I can’t blame anyone for HIV if I decide to have unprotected sex.. We should look at everyone we meet as HIV positive until you see it on paper..
redcarpet30
Sounds like he’s got a fantastic case for an appeal on the basis of inadequate defense.
Maybe the ACLU could help out.
Maude
All else aside, are we now in sympathy with a gay man that could well be spreading his HIV status?
Masc Pride
@Stache: Charlie Sheen is in a different state. He’s also a celebrity, and we already know they rarely go to jail for more than a couple of weeks. But if all the accusations against him can be proven, I totally think he should go to jail too (even though it most likely won’t happen). We punish people who commit crimes, and knowing this is the only thing keeping some people civilized.
@JerseyMike: Totally agree with you about adults being responsible for their own actions. It applies to those that are negative, but it also applies to the poz too. Disclosure is a responsibility, not a courtesy. Gay men barebacking in 2015 is stupid, but not disclosing is malicious. As far as the “Treat everyone like they’re poz” mantra, the rate of new infections would be so much lower if guys believed it as much as they say it. A lot of guys would also be celibate. Living in a world where everybody else is HIV positive would be super depressing and kinda gross too.
nmharleyrider
Regardless of the makeup of the jury, if he was guilty and he apparently was, that should be treated as attempted murder and judged as that crime. Thirty years is not enough for anyone who willingly infects someone with HIV. Yes, I am gay, and I think his actions were heinous. He got what he deserved.
FrankS
Sounds like the defense attorney failed miserably all the way around. The snippets of the trial indicate she should have been disqualified as a defense counsel – especially if she was a court appointed attorney. Her malpractice started by not eliminating religious bigots during voir dire.
Baba Booey Fafa Fooey
The ACLU needs to get involved. You have a bunch of bigots as jurors. Don’t they weed these assholes out during jury selection? The ACLU needs to get involved. That’s crazy and seemingly illegal.
sportsguy1983
My heart bleeds for him. No one is defending him by saying he didn’t commit the crime he is accused of. The jurors may be “bigots”, but it was the judge, not the jurors, that sentenced him. He is obviously scum and deserves hat he gets. I don’t have sympathy for his “victims”. They were dumb enough to take his word and not protect themselves. Unless he forced them gun/knife point, they willingly had unprotected sex.
CWM85
I disagree with being gay a sin obviously but his sin was knowingly having unprotected sex with people when he should have disclosed it. He is a cruel and sick person who deserves this sentence and others who did what he did should take notice. No sympathy for him here. I suspect his sentence will be reduced however. But he deserves jail. Sick bastard.
JerseyMike
@Stache: Charlie Sheen will not even get a slap on the wrist because he is a rich white male..
Bob LaBlah
The proven fact that he recorded his encounters is what I think did him in. Had he not done that he could have been believed if he claimed he did tell them his status, which I doubt he did. This is why when I go to the baths I simply be careful and hope for the best. I don’t ask and even if they offer to tell voluntarily I don’t believe them.
We all want what turns us on but have to remember the fact that without testing equipment present how can one be certain. And even then how can you be sure of the accuracy of the test? None come without the possibility of flaws.
CWM85
People now defending people knowing spreading HIV. I’m sorry if this is what being liberal is about I don’t no part of it. It doesn’t matter what color he is or if he was gay. He knowingly spread a disease that has killed millions of people! I’m sure Sanders and Clinton will come to his offense shouting racism when he is the one who committed this heinous acts!
Louie Mars
The stigma remains…No Poz person is obligated to reveal their status. I’m NEG because I assume all my partners are Poz…take care of yourself and don’t blame others if you get infected.
notevenwrong
So it is better never to get tested for HIV, from a legal standpoint.
johnnyboy1988
Why am I reading NOTHING about his viral load??? And why does no one understand that if you are on HIV meds, there is NO CHANCE of you spreading a disease?? Even if you WANT TO and have unprotected sex 10 times a day for a year, the chances of you actually spreading it are something like 0.00000. It’s simple biology – the meds kill the viral particles, there’s nothing in your fluids to spread. What was his viral load? Was he on meds?? That’s the important thing. IF HE KNEW of his status, and was NOT on meds, and was having unprotected sex, then yes, he should be prosecuted (30 years? please. total racism/homophobia/pozaphobia). IF HE WAS on meds (which I assume he was, because he was a college student and most people who know of their status go on meds, if they can afford to), then this entire thing is a travesty and he should never have even be brought to the stand.
Masc Pride
@johnnyboy1988: Where are you getting the info that’s giving you this “0.00000” number? That would be a cure. Also, one of Johnson’s partners DID end up poz.
bobbyjoe
The defense attorney says “You are going to need to have a new trial in a few minutes because I am going to be disqualified” and then storms out of the courtroom? And the judge lets the trial continue, with her as the defense attorney?
No matter what the case was about, given the ineptitude and behavior of the people in charge here (excepting maybe the prosecutor) the question any sane country should be asking is why either the attorney or the judge should still be allowed to participate in our court system at all.
johnnyboy1988
@Masc Pride: Google it. Experts agree it’s basically zero. Also, inability to transmit is NOT a cure. Since people can still get HIV and not go on meds and then spread it. It has nothing to do with a cure. And to answer your question, I can’t find anything that says anyone got infected. All I see is a comment above saying that no one got infected, and vague, poorly written articles with no details either way.
johnnyboy1988
What makes me most sad about all of this is that this is a complete failure by the gay community to actually control HIV. Whenever something like this happens, and people are punished for having a medical condition, all it does is make people less likely to get tested. It creates fear. It creates stigma. So does saying something like “DDF only” in your profile. It gives people incentive to lie (“sure, I was tested recently”) and more afraid of finding out their status. All of this just results in more infections, making the problem worse for all of us. Criminalization will not solve this crisis, it will only make it worse.
GayEGO
What this man did regardless of gender attraction by hiding his HIV from a sexual partner was simply wrong. But believing that gender attraction to the same gender is a sin is ancient false hoopla.
BigG
30 years is about right considering the pathological sociopathic nature this man possesses is quite disturbing. Not everyone can handle the medication so in reality I think it’s justice served. Sends a harsh message. There are quite a few side effects to the meds some people can’t handle.
Xzamilio
Yeah, the sentence is absurd, but the blase approach the Buzzfeed article took about HIV was a little off, to say the least, especially considering that it makes a lot of heavy assumptions about the healthcare of those infected with HIV. I mean, let’s be honest: not all of regularly check ourselves, and even with Obamacare, access to healthcare still remains difficult for those in rural areas. You never take someone at their word that they are “clean”… you keep that shit wrapped up until you are absolutely sure.
That said, I do feel that Johnson’s race and sexuality were at the forefront here, but more his sexuality than anything else. There’s no doubt in my mind that had this kind of case been tried in the 50s, his race would have been at play more so than anything else, going by this ignorant ass prosecutor. Yes, what he did was wrong, but 30 years of his life? Ridiculous.
Masc Pride
@johnnyboy1988: The risk is LOWER with a person who’s on meds and undetectable. Low risk doesn’t mean zero risk. I’m asking you for a link to the information (written by a medical professional) that gave you the “0.00000” number. Even articles that are seemingly defending Johnson say one of his partners did wind up testing positive. If Johnson was stabilized on meds, it’s obviously not impossible for a person on meds to transmit.
“Johnson used online hookup apps and social networking sites—such as Grindr and Adam4Adam—to meet several men in early 2013. He and his partners engaged in sex without condoms. One partner eventually seroconverted—that is, he turned HIV positive—and accused Johnson of transmitting the infection. Johnson was arrested and his name was publicized widely. Other men came forward and claimed they had sex with him, too. Johnson says he told them that he was positive. The men claim he did not.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/reckless-prosecution-tiger-mandingo/
gayt0r
Yes, justice was most definitely served. It is incredible how this piece of shit is trying to get an appeal based on the race card, how typical!
If you know you’re positive, and have sex with several different people without disclosing your status I honestly don’t care if you get hit by a truck. You can rot in jail or hell, get shit in the mouth with gaping cuts, get salmonella, and die while bleeding from every orifice for all I care. Disgusting scum that you find on the bottom of your shoes.
I had sex with a guy who turned out to be poz, and I used a condom. I still went to the hospital and got PreP, and I don’t think I’d be able to stop myself from beating someone to a bloody pulp if I knew they had sex with others while knowingly positive. This man obviously has no remorse for his actions, so let him rot in jail.
Stache
@gayt0r: He’s not playing the race card dumbass. It was a survey of the jury that found that and many other problems. He needs a retrial that’s fair and balanced.
I’m sure you’d be a ok with forcing people into camps and wearing tattoos. Just because you’re that kind of asshole. Keep the violent rhetoric by all means though and drive this even further underground so no one discloses.
Masc Pride
@johnnyboy1988: Johnson was not “punished for having a medical condition”. You’re twisting this all around. He’s being punished for knowingly spreading the virus. You don’t get arrested for testing positive. People don’t lie about their status because of seeing “DDF only”. They lie because they’re manipulative. I guarantee you HIV status isn’t the only thing those guys are lying about on their profiles. You want to take all the blame off the poz individual and place it all on the guys who were silly enough to bareback with him while unaware of his poz status. BOTH are to blame. However, being stupid isn’t against the law (though one could argue that at least one of his partners also got a pretty stiff life sentence of sorts). Intentionally harming people IS against the law.
Eric Johnson
And don’t forget they were also old & very white
CCTR
Most of these laws are not only discriminatory but very outdated. AIDs is not an inevitable outcome of HIV as it once was.
There is so much to consider in this particular case starting with the messy and biased trial, Michael Johnson’s reported learning disability, the consensual nature of the hook ups and condom-less sex, and whether or not there was medical evidence proving that sex with Michael resulted in the seroconversion alleged by one of the accusers.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/how-college-wrestling-star-tiger-mandingo-became-an-hiv-scap#.kp1RmpVJq
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/hiv-aids-sex-michael-johnson/53d66797fe3444e6bf000443
CCTR
@johnnyboy1988: very true!
Chris
The defense attorney seems to have been, to say the very least, negligent for not challenging the individual jurors in terms of their assumptions about being gay.
Also, I think that his fail term is way out line, especially if he did not actually infect anyone that he had sex with. There is something about the punishment’s being excessive in relationship to the “wrong.”
Having said the above, I do not agree with this site’s position on putting the burden for protection entirely on the partners who were lied to about this man’s status. Absent information about his status, they were unable to provide informed consent to sexual relations with him. Where I come from, sex without consent is called rape. I prefer he’d been tried for rape.
JerseyMike
@Louie Mars: EXACTLY!! Assume everyone is POZ.. We are responsible for our own health. Trust no one.
Kangol
What a horrendous sentence for a case that should never have gone to trial. NEVER. Michael Johnson should NOT be in jail. He shouldn’t.
ANY CONSENTING ADULT WHO IS HAVING SEX SHOULD PROTECT HERSELF OR HIMSELF! There is no cure, so be an adult and protect yourself by using condoms, PrEP, whatever it takes. Don’t ask don’t tell isn’t a prevention strategy.
Michael Johnson did not commit rape. Homosexuality is not a sin, serotransmitting is not a “sin,” seroconverting is not a sin, HIV is not a death sentence, it is not 1985, it’s 2015, and we need better prevention, we need a cure, but we also really should work on ending all the homophobic and HIV-phobic moralizing that still infects the minds of too many in the LGBTIQ community, let alone the wider society.
Brian
It does seem like a stupid decision considering that HIV is not fatal anymore.
alphacentauri
You have fools like Atticus claiming that this is actual homophobia/r@c!sm and other BS when this guy knew he was HIV+ and intentionally had unprotected sex with people and lied about being HIV+. He got what he deserved. It’s best if people when they have sex assume that whoever they’re with is HIV+ but not all people do this, a lot of gay men who are HIV+ lie about it, and I have heard of bottoms and tops taking off condoms so they can get fucked raw.
alphacentauri
If you want to see some actual r@c!sm look at the guy’s screen name he used the term Mandingo which is a r@c!st term and he is r@c!st towards his own race as some black people can be this way.
alphacentauri
The silly buzzfeed article is SJW BS.
Masc Pride
@Brian: HIV isn’t fatal. However, people still die of AIDS-related illnesses every day. If he spreads it to people and they don’t get tested, they could die within a couple of years. A lot of guys go far longer than two years without getting tested.
@alphacentauri: When we try to claim situations like this are rooted in homophobia (while down-playing what a person like Johnson has done), it greatly undermines the issue of true homophobia that’s directed towards people who haven’t gone around spreading HIV. Totally agree with you on the “mandingo” thing too. Some of the articles I’ve read on this story seem to point the finger more at the white men who were “sexually objectifying him”, but he advertised himself that way and seemingly to attract the “r csts” that supposedly used him. Look up any article on this by a writer named Steven Thrasher. Shameless (and quite lengthy) race-baiting.
philipcfromnyc
@Daniel Salmeron: Sorry, but as an openly gay man, I completely disagree with you.
It is the responsibility of every gay man to assume that his partner is infected with HIV and to take care of his own health, not blame becoming ill on somebody else. That is precisely why all men who have sex with men are encouraged, in every form of the media, to use condoms and to get tested regularly. There is even a drug named Truvada which is used as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, and when this drug is taken together with the regular usage of condoms, the risk of infection plummets to almost zero.
Furthermore, it appears that Johnson’s attorney provided grossly ineffective assistance of counsel — and I hope that Johnson brings this up, together with the composition of the jury, the attitudes of the jurors towards gay persons, and the general failure of the judge to ensure that Johnson obtained a fair trial. After Johnson has exhausted his direct appeals, he can file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He should also throw in a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) claim, as it appears that his jury was selected without regard to the fact that the overwhelming majority of his jurors believed that being gay is a sin, and due to the fact that many of these jurors further believed that being gay was a choice.
I NEVER ask the status of a potential sex partner, whether looking for a one-night hookup (I am not going to pretend to be a plaster saint) — I ALWAYS assume that the guy concerned is HIV positive. It falls to ME to assume that he is positive, and to take the appropriate precautions. The men with whom Johnson had sex should have assumed, as a matter of course, that Johnson was positive, and acted accordingly.
His sentence is grotesque, and he should petition the appellate court based on the Eighth Amendment’s promise that no person should be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
This also reveals the bias, unsophistication, religious bigotry, and general “hick” mentality of residents of the small town in Missouri. I very much hope that reason prevails.
PHILIP CHANDLER
alphacentauri
@philipcfromnyc: Truvada/Prep is toxic, has bad side effects, and the majority of men who take it do not use condoms or have safer sex, and think it’s the 70s and they can do it raw with anyone and they’ll stay neg from HIV and all STDs. Plus the medication has to be taken daily, and it’s expensive. Condoms are far less expensive, far more effective, are not toxic-even if you are allergic to latex they make them in other materials, and do not have horrible long and short term side effects like PreP does.
Brandon Phillips
Lmao. If this had been a white str8 white man with an all black gay jury none of you would bitch. The fact is he committed a crime and is exactly where he belongs. Yes people should take responsibility for themselves but he shouldn’t have lie and hid his status.
Tackle
@Masc Pride: Actually a lot of Black women are not infected with HIV/AIDS. In fact, most are not. You’re confusing the number of newly diagnosed, which can be confusing, and disputed, due to how and where the numbers are gathered, and the fact that Black women are always oversampled.
And I doubt seriously that a group of Black women would have agreed to give him a 30 yr sentence…Prison time yes, 30 yrs no. You crack me up with your thinking that you are an expert on the lives and actions of Black people…
alphacentauri
@Tackle: I know gay black men, and bi, lesbian, and hetero black women who would have convicted him for 30 years especially since he did lie about being HIV+ and infected at least one other man.
joe
@Stache: i agree with you i believe though he should go to jail but probablt not 30 yrs, the point is if they can prove infecting another person was a goal, like this dentist recently arrested in ny who purposely put holes in condoms
Gerald GeeLocke Panuthos
horrible.
philipcfromnyc
@alphacentauri: All that I can tell you is that I have suffered absolutely no ill effects from Truvada whatsoever. Furthermore, Medicare and Medicaid both pay for this drug. I realize that I am therefore fortunate. Yes, you are right about many gay men believing that they can have “bareback”sex on PrEP without consequences. But the fact that some men abuse PrEP should not prevent the rest of us from being able to avail ourselves of this option. I still use condoms for every sexual encounter, and I am shocked by the judgmental attitude towards users of PrEP which has captured the hearts of a significant number of gay men. I recently saw a T-shirt proudly emblazoned with the words “Truvada slut,” and had I not been in company, I would have bought that shirt to emphasize that PrEP is MY choice and MY responsibility. Truvada consists of one nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (tenofovir) combined with one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (emtricitabine).
It is MY choice, following informed consultation, to use this drug.
PHILIP CHANDLER
philipcfromnyc
@Realitycheck: Of course he can appeal, and will doubtless do so. He can file a round of direct appeals within the state court system, and following the finalization of his conviction by filing a direct appeal and being denied by either the state supreme court or the US Supreme Court, he then has one year to perfect an additional, “habeas corpus” appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254. It is here that he stands the greatest chance of securing the writ due to ineffective assistance of counsel (under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1994)) or due to cruel and unusual punishment.
The problems surrounding his trial appear to have been caused primarily by his own defense attorney, who sounds like an utter disgrace to her profession.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Masc Pride
@Tackle: You crack me up getting bent out of shape over things you clearly misunderstood. You seem to think I was saying most black women have HIV, which isn’t what I said at all. I said a lot of black women that are positive got it from men like Johnson who weren’t being honest with them (which is why I doubt they would’ve arrived at a different decision). Two very different statements.
The jury didn’t give him 30 years, the judge did. The jury just found him guilty. If you scroll up, you’ll see that even a lot of the gay black members here (even you) think he was wrong and deserves jail time.
AndYouWillDeal
Are you really trying to defend this piece of crap who KNOWINGLY, MALICIOUSLY infected his partners with a DEADLY, INCURABLE illness, trying to spin it as homophobia and racism?
philipcfromnyc
@Masc Pride: I disagree. The burden falls on ME to assume that every time I have sex, I am having sex with a person who is HIV-positive! I AM THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN LOOK OUT FOR MY HEALTH! I wish that we lived in a world in which people were honest and treated each other with kindness and decency, but we do NOT live ins that world, and must accept the fact that ALL people lie, manipulate, are deceitful, are at times brazenly unethical in their behavior, and are generally less than 100% honest in their relationships.
If you decide to have bareback sex, the burden is on YOU — assumption of the risk falls squarely on YOUR shoulders. These laws are atrocious, BECAUSE THEY PROMPT PEOPLE NOT TO GET TESTED, and because they prompt some people to lie upon determination that the person concerned is HIV positive. In a very real sense, Johnson IS being punished for having a medical condition — in the real world, people simply do not raise this issue due to fear of rejection, fear of being vilified (particularly in small Missouri towns), and fear of becoming social outcasts.
Look at the sentence which was handed down! That says it all!
PHILIP CHANDLER
philipcfromnyc
@alphacentauri: You write “I have heard of bottoms and tops taking off condoms so they can get fucked raw.”
This is precisely my point! The burden falls on the shoulders of every man who has sex with other men to assume whatever degree of risk he is willing to assume. I recently met a hustler who claimed to be taking Truvada, and he told me that when trials first started, he was even paid a small stipend for his participation. I believe that he was telling the truth — but NO WAY IN HELL WILL I ALLOW HIM TO FUCK ME BAREBACK, despite the fact that he continues to take Truvada! Other people will not be so picky, and will allow their sex partner(s) to take off his (their) condom(s) so that he can feel raw sex. This desire is understandable — I am alive today because from the very date of my arrival in the USA back in 1986, I insisted on always using condoms, and on my sex partners always using condoms. But I have often wondered what raw sex must feel like.
Should I act on that desire, I will pick up a boyfriend or sex buddy, and the two of us will go down to the doctor’s office together to obtain not only antibody tests, but also the more expensive tests (PCR, branch DNA, etc.) which search for the presence of HIV virions within the bloodstream of the persons concerned. I would want the standard antibody test to be performed, because this would rule out partners who have merely attained undetectability due to HAART but who are, in fact, infected.
When these laws were first written, HIV led, invariably and with very, very few exceptions (elite controllers and viremic controllers) to AIDS and an early, painful death. That is seldom (I use this term relatively) the case today provided the person concerned knows his or her HIV status and acts to obtain HAART if positive. Even the most drug intolerant person can usually find some combinations of AVRs which will result in that person becoming undetectable within a matter of months.
PHILIP CHANDLERA
Zach Perry
Its one thing to unknowingly pass along a sti, but to know that you have a disease/infection and continue exposing others without telling them is absolutely disgusting. If he knew that he was positive before having sex with even one of those people without telling them, the I have no pity for him
cabe
The article mentions almost all white jury as a hinderance. I don’t think that is so bad. More blacks are homophobic than whites or any other race. Its the whole church thing.
Masc Pride
@philipcfromnyc: I agree that we all have a responsibility to look out for ourselves, but people who know they’re infected have a responsibility to disclose as well. It’s rather counterproductive that we’re very much about pride, unity and trying to help advance this community…until it comes to HIV and criminal transmission. Then we switch gears and start arguing every man for himself. Guys like Johnson help to raise the risks and infection rates, which harms the community.
Laws are not stopping people from getting tested nor are they the reason why people lie about HIV status. Criminal transmission is usually not easy to prove, and if you know about the laws and know you’re poz, that would actually be a reason NOT to lie about your status. You’re arguing personal accountability, yet you have lots of excuses for people who proceed to bareback without disclosing.
Johnson is not being punished for having HIV. Nobody leaves a testing facility in handcuffs after testing positive. HIV isn’t the crime, knowingly spreading it is. There are a lot of biases out in the world, and we know they play out in the justice system…which is good reason to not commit crimes. Don’t walk around harming people, and then you don’t have to worry about your life winding up in the hands of a potentially biased system.
The guy Johnson infected as well as the guys he put at risk were all gay as well, so this whole homophobic jury argument doesn’t really make any sense. They did decide on a verdict that got these other GAY men the justice they were seeking.
Xzamilio
@Chris: While I agree that the burden is not entirely on them and I do agree the original article put most of the onus on the victims, the “rape” leap is absurd. It was consensual sex, and any way you spin it, no one was raped or forced to have sex against their will, and they damn sure weren’t forced to go bareback. It is your personal responsibility to make sure you are protected, and simply taking someone at their word that they are clean demonstrates a lack of common sense regarding safe sex. And then adding creampies and facials on top of that… no. Johnson definitely should do some time, but he is not a rapist and does not deserve 30 years in prison. And it is entirely possible that he had shoddy representation and a hostile jury. It’s not about race… it’s about how we still view HIV/AIDS and plain recklessness.
You assume anyone you’re with has something and wrap that shit up… there is too much shit out there to be taking chances.
Jonny B. Mitchell
Ugh
courthousedoc
@Masc Pride: http://www.aidsmap.com/No-one-with-an-undetectable-viral-load-gay-or-heterosexual-transmits-HIV-in-first-two-years-of-PARTNER-study/page/2832748
“When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: “Our best estimate is it’s zero.””
And just because one person he had sex with seroconverted doesn’t mean that it was him that caused him to seroconvert. If you think that he was the only person he had sex without a condom, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.
And all this crap people are posting here about him being charged with attempted murder for passing on a deadly virus? Wake up and learn the research. People who are HIV+ now live a normal life span, and in many cases live a longer life-span than similarly situated HIV- people because they are seeing a physician more regularly. HIV is no longer a death sentence and it keeps getting better and better. As long as the person is getting care and maintaining his regimen. But HIV is no longer a death sentence, it is no longer a deadly virus. At least not in this country. It doesn’t have to be.
courthousedoc
@philipcfromnyc: Except that condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing the transmission of HIV. And about 46% of new cases of HIV are being diagnosed in men who are supposedly in monogamous relationships.
dave lopes
@alphacentauri:
Open a book and learn the meaning of racism.
Mandingo/Mandinka refers to an ethnic group in West Africa.
He could have called himself Zulu or any other african ethnicity.
Stop crying racism over things you don’t understand.
courthousedoc
@AndYouWillDeal: It isn’t a deadly virus. At least not in this country. Perhaps you should keep up with the science. We have a responsibility as gay men to keep up with the science relating to this virus. On treatments and prevention strategies. It’s how we will get to zero. And it’s how those who are positive will live normal lives. Which they are doing now.
dave lopes
They claim one person got infected.
How on earth do they know who infected the so called victim.
Is he the only person he chose to have unprotected sex with? doubt it.
This conviction need to be thrown out and a new trial ordered with a new lawyer and judge.
courthousedoc
@alphacentauri: There is so much crap in your post I don’t know where to start. First it is not toxic. It has been approved for 13 years and is well known. It’s adverse reaction profile is minimal and well understood. The short term reactions are gastric upset and vivid dreams, both of which pass quickly. The risk of long term adverse reactions are kidney and liver functions and insignificant bone density loss which is why kidney and liver functions are checked every 6 months and at the first sign of an issue the drug is discontinued and the functions return to normal, hence no long term damage. And the bone density issue is corrected with addition of a calcium supplement to the diet. Truvada is far more effective than condoms at preventing HIV transmission. The CDC puts condoms at about 70% effective when used properly at reducing the risk of HIV transmission. Truvada is at 96-99%, although most scientists believe it is well above 99%, as no one who has taken their Truvada every day has ever seroconverted. The same cannot be said for people who have always used condoms. Yes, it is expensive but is covered by every insurance plan and by patient assistance and copay plans. And the cost will come down drastically in 2017 when it goes on generic. You are just wrong on about every single thing you said.
Stache
@dave lopes: I read that the guy supposedly infected by him admitted to barebacking with others. There’s no way to prove he did it.
Barb Kipper
Get religion out of the courts.
johnnyboy1988
@Masc Pride: Thank you to @courthousedoc for posting that link. I have also asked my doctors (and they are all Harvard doctors – I live in Boston) – they all agreed with these findings. One even said “we’ve always known this, we were just waiting for a study.” Again, it’s simple biology. If there are no viral particles in your blood, how can you spread it? My guess is that that dude who seroconverted got it from someone else who didn’t know their status. If he had unprotected sex with the defendant, I’m sure he was having it with other guys. Was there a genotype test performed on the two HIV strains to prove that the plaintiff was infected by the defendant? I haven’t read that. I would still rather have unprotected sex with an HIV positive individual on anti-retroviral medication than someone who says “they are clean and DDF” (unless they have the test results in hand to prove it from within the last 24 hours) any day. It’s common sense. I’m done here, but I’ll just say that TREATMENT SAVES LIVES AND PREVENTS INFECTIONS. Ask any expert – doctors, public health officials, scientists. Laws and sentences like these do the opposite. Other conclusions stem from fear. We are better than that. If we ALL work together, regardless of status, we can stop HIV.
johnnyboy1988
@courthousedoc: Thank you. It’s ridiculous how ill-informed so many people are about PREP.
Masc Pride
@courthousedoc: The Partner study was interesting. It’s interesting that some of the neg participants did serocovert, and it’s even more interesting that Partner decided they weren’t going to say how many. They say the risk might be as low as up to 4 percent, but they won’t know until 2017. To my knowledge it’s still 2015. The study actually isn’t even done. You’re presenting preliminary findings as conclusive. So no, I’m definitely not interested in any of your oceanfront properties. 😉
As far as HIV not being a deadly virus, I guess you could argue that it never was, even back when the laws were created. If you want to get technical, people don’t actually die from AIDS either; they die from complications of AIDS-related opportunistic infections. Aren’t word games fun?!
@johnnyboy1988: Your doctors told you all this even though the research won’t be completed until 2017? It’s odd to find doctors that will state they’re that sure of anything let alone something they’re apparently still waiting for a study to prove.
Hun
An all-black or non-white jury would have been worse.
CCTR
@Masc Pride: “…until it comes to HIV and criminal transmission. Then we switch gears and start arguing every man for himself. Guys like Johnson help to raise the risks and infection rates, which harms the community. ”
Question the idea that HIV infection is only a result of non-disclosure. If someone does disclose their HIV positive status that doesn’t insure that both consenting parties won’t agree to engage in unprotected sex and potentially transmit HIV. In a situation like that should they both be put in prison if HIV is transmitted?
The laws are clearly bias towards people that are HIV positive. If it’s all about stopping transmission, shouldn’t there be laws that are meant to imprison men that are engaging in bareback sex and not using PrEP?
Think about what type of sexual activity may be going on in prisons across the country. I highly doubt STD prevention is top priority.
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/21/378678167/california-prisons-aim-to-keep-sex-between-inmates-safe-if-illegal
“Every man for himself” is more about the inability to control what consenting people of legal age do sexually so isn’t it best to begin with every man protecting himself, the only person he has sexual control over.
Not everyone that ends up in the justice system has done harm nor committed a crime. Think back to how some acts described as “homosexual acts” were against the law resulting in bias laws that were unjust to say the least.
People should be considerate and ethical but we know that is not always the case and that alone will not stop the spread of HIV.
Not disclosing and knowingly exposing someone can be two very different things.
alphacentauri
@courthousedoc: Actually Truvada/PreP is toxic. Look it up, it’s not good for your liver, kidnies, or other internal organs. Bone density loss is not something that can just be solved with taking calcium supplements.
I know of nobody even HIV neg people who are in longterm relationships with HIV+ people and have been for decades who wound up poz when they always used condoms correctly.
I do know more than a few gay men who take PreP like it’s candy and think they can bareback all they want and they’re going to be HIV+ soon if it has not happened already.
If you want to take PreP and bareback that’s your choice but it’s akin to huffing gasoline.
alphacentauri
@johnnyboy1988: You’re spreading lies and BS here…but I’m not surprised you’re on PreP and into barebacking.
philipcfromnyc
@alphacentauri: That comment, directed towards johnnyboy1988, is totally uncalled for and personal in nature — it certainly adds absolutely nothing to the quality of this debate. I, too, would rather have unprotected sex with somebody who is undetectable and on HAART than have unprotected sex with a person who claims to be HIV negative, drug and disease free, but who cannot prove this. I take my Truvada every day, have suffered no side-effects, and continue to use condoms. My doctor has told me that the “treatment as prevention” model has been recognized as real for a long time, and that current studies from Europe merely prove what doctors have known all along. Unprotected sex with a person who is truly undetectable (fewer than 50 copies of the virus per cubic milliliter of blood) is HIGHLY unlikely to result in infection!
Don’t accuse people who disagree with you as being “into barebacking.” Since taking Truvada several months ago, I have been tested twice, and the results have been negative. Truvada is, for me, a belt and braces measure — condoms are my first line of defense, and Truvada is the second. Furthermore, I DON’T ASK the HIV status of my partner, whether that partner is a one night stand, a hustler (yes, I have known my fair share of the company of hustlers), or a long-term partner. It is simply no longer an issue for me.
Should I ever test positive, I will be inconvenienced, but that is where matters will end — the European studies confirm that men who take HAART religiously live at least as long as, IF NOT LONGER THAN, men who are HIV negative.
I guess you will accuse me of being “into barebacking” too now…
PHILIP CHANDLER
Stache
@philipcfromnyc: @alphacentauri: There’s no use in debating with alpharetard. She’s going to be right no matter what any facts, studies, people actually affected, or Doctors say. You’d have a better dialog with a brick wall.
David Chachki
Being gay is not a sin but yea he was wrong but his orientation has nothing to do with his actions and what he did
Tracy Pope
I read the original article. Some notes about it…
1) He lied.
2) Under Missouri law it’s jail time if you infect someone with HIV.
Whether that is right or wrong is a different issue.
3) The trial was a mess. He very likely could seek and get a new trial.
4) Those a$$holes just couldn’t help themselves because they just HAD to have a big dick?
Personal responsibility. No, I’m not “blaming the victim” for anything
except stupidity.
5) Other than him having the poorest representation possible I can’t bring myself to
feel sympathy for any of them.
Stache
@Bob LaBlah: Here’s the story..
http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/how-college-wrestling-star-tiger-mandingo-became-an-hiv-scap#.vwGLLA2vL
How College Wrestling Star “Tiger Mandingo” Became An HIV Scapegoat
“Everyone wanted a piece of him, until he had HIV.”
ST. CHARLES, Mo. — In January 2013, a white male college student in Missouri noticed a profile on a gay mobile hookup app for a black guy with ripped abs and a chiseled chest with the username “Tiger Mandingo.”
“I am more into white guys, but I like black guys,” the student told BuzzFeed. He connected with Tiger because he was “gorgeous, he had great legs, and he was well-endowed.”
The student at Lindenwood University in the St. Louis suburb of St. Charles quickly recognized that in real life, Tiger Mandingo was also a student at his school: Michael Johnson, a recent transfer student on Lindenwood’s wrestling team. They hooked up later that month in Johnson’s dorm room, where, the student said, Johnson told him he was “clean.” He gave Johnson a blow job.
Johnson invited him to go out sometime, but the student got busy and “didn’t have time for that.” They didn’t hook up again until early October.
This time, they had anal sex without a condom. “I let him come in me,” the student said. He wanted bareback sex, he said, because Johnson was “huge,” “only my third black guy,” and — as he said Johnson told him yet again — “clean.”
The student said he has barebacked with multiple “friends and ex-boyfriends,” situations in which “we trusted each other. I mean, I don’t just let anybody do it.” Yet he also said he had bareback sex “with people I barely knew.” In those cases, he said, “I knew they were clean,” sometimes just “by looking at them.”
The student’s nonchalance changed when he described a call he got from Johnson a few days after their second hookup: “He calls me and he said, ‘I found out I have a disease.’ And I asked, ‘Is there a cure?’ and he said, ‘I don’t know.’ And I was like, ‘Are you fucking kidding me?’ I got pissed. I had asked him several times, and he’d said he was clean, and I trusted him! And I got mad at him, and then he got mad at me for getting mad, and then he said, ‘I gotta go.’”
inbama
@Joe Eugene:
I don’t care if you only have a cold – of course, it is your responsibility to inform your partner!
Captain Obvious
Some of these comments are so stupid they require popcorn. I feel like I just watched a comedy. 10/10 would read again.
Eddie Poole-Boccio
Whether or not being gay is a sin does not work in the law. The Bible is not law and sin is not ours to judge. If the man was knowingly exposing others to HIV, common sense says he was being criminally negligent. His sexuality has nothing to do with the law or case either. The only thing that matters would be the facts. Did he have sex with another partner and not inform them of his HIV status, not using protection, and putting them at risk or possibly even infecting them with the HIV virus? If so, then he is guilty. If he informed the partners of his status, and they had sexual relations with him and didn’t use protection, then he is not guilty because he had informed consent. I get so sick of people using the Bible and religions to rule other people’s lives. I bet you I could follow one of these “deeply held religious beliefs” people around for a day and we can point out sin after sin after sin…as that tv show used to say, “just the facts!”
surreal33
Enough with the blaming the victim!
If you are HIV anything (positive, undetectable) you are responsible to inform every person you have sexual contact with including kissing, blowjobs, whatever.
The clueless idiot you are having sexual contact with should not be exposed to life threatening disease because you decide your need to get off is more important than a persons health and well being. The fact that the jury was biased has ZERO to do with the fact the man on trial willfully and intentionally exposed people to a life altering, potentially fatal disease. The fact that the defendant inserted his unprotected penis in multiple partners and ejaculated is the same as firing a loaded GUN inside multiple partners you might not kill anyone but it is attempted MURDER just same. Justice should have been the death penalty as prison is too good for him.
Kieru
This article, like all the rest focusing on the jury make-up or the sentence itself, overlooks a few key points.
1.) Missouri law makes lying or failing to disclose your HIV status a crime, whether you infect your partner or not.
2.) This same law defines the terms of any sentencing
3.) Regardless of any jury bias (and I agree there was one) the case of guilt vs. innocence was clear. He was guilty.
Given that any jury would have found this man guilty under Missouri law, it’s a hard sell to play the race/prejudiced card. He was clearly guilty, and the sentencing for his crime well established under the law which he was accused of violating.
Now if you want to argue that the law is too harsh – that’s a worthwhile discussion. There is something to be said for shared responsibility here. This man had a responsibility to disclose his status to any sexual partner, but equally those same partner have a responsibility to their own safe-sex practices.
NovaNardis
If you’re on a jury, the judge instructs you that you aren’t allowed to consider a possible sentence when determining guilt. That is to say, the jury determines whether a person is guilty, and the judge determines what the sentence should be if he or she is. You’re violating your oath as a juror–you’re breaking the law–if you don’t keep that separate.
Is it insane that 2/3 of jurors believed being gay was a sin? Yes. Does that change this man’s guilt or innocence? No. A “jury of your peers” doesn’t mean “a jury where everyone looks and thinks like me.” It means a jury randomly selected from the population around you.
I’m proudly gay and I would have voted to convict in about 5 minutes. If you knowingly expose someone to HIV without warning them, that should be criminal. Period. Full stop. Man or woman. Gay or straight. Black or white. No exceptions.
Bob LaBlah
Here’s what I don’t get. Lets say I go out and have sex with several of you. I end up with HIV. I get angry and go to the police. Does the law require ALL of you to be tested to determine who gave it to me based solely on an accusation?
Or worse yet you and I are roommates. I know you have HIV but after an argument over rent you tell me to get out. I tell the police you and I had sex and you didn’t tell me about your status even though I knew it. Do you guys see where this law has already gone? How do you defend yourself against an accusation like that?
In this little country hick town I live in that wants to call itself a big city rest assured it is going to make the local tv news and the paper. Now you and I both have to pack up and relocate after we both lose our jobs or the conditions at work become so horrific we end up wishing we had. I have no doubt things like this have already happened.
aliengod
Regardless of the jurors beliefs about homosexuality, this disgusting guy got exactly what he deserved. He knowingly and willingly exposed several people to an incurable, deadly disease.
onthemark
@Stache: Wow. You need to be really smart nowadays to get into college. (sarc)
“I knew they were clean,” sometimes just “by looking at them.” He must have got an A in his Clairvoyance class.
Someone in another, recent Queerty thread was declaring that gay HIV infection rates are still high because of the “self-hatred” of the “community,” blah blah blah, and there was pious agreement. (As there usually is when someone pompously brings up that “community” bullshit.) I said whoa, “self-hatred”? There are plenty of stupid guys out there, but they don’t usually hate themselves.
If only this kid HAD hated himself, he might have taken responsibility instead of whining to the cops!
onthemark
@aliengod: It’s not clear WHEN he knew anything or if he was doing it deliberately.
For example, if we take the above news account literally, the one right above you (Stache’s comment) – he may have thought he was negative when the sex act occurred, and found out he was poz after that.
Laws like this discourage getting tested AT ALL, since no one can be prosecuted if they don’t know their status.
Stache
@onthemark: It does look like he really didn’t know up till that point. That or he’s as dumb as this barebacking princess. What is clear is that if he had kept his mouth shut and not said anything he wouldn’t be where he’s at right now.
Stache
The net effect of all of this. Anyone in Missouri (if they’re smart) from on won’t tell anyone anything. Why set yourself up and who would blame them.
Bob LaBlah
@Stache: First of all thank you for putting that article in your comment. I stayed on top of this case because I thought back to a guy at the baths in NYC who said a guy came back and approached him with some “I got it from you, I know it” shit. That was the end of it more or less (2004 era) but since then these laws are popping up left and right that seem hellbent to ruin people based on a accusation that can not be proven by the accused. That being ‘I did tell him”. The response will be “ok, prove it.” Where does that leave the accused? His viral load must have been detectable for him to have transmitted it. In other words, he wasn’t taking his meds. And those online pictures and video of him with those drag queens sure as hell didn’t help change the minds of those “god fearing” white christians and that lone black person(s) who made up the jury. A plea deal would have been better than a trial.
What he did was wrong but I think five years would be long enough to have learned his “lesson”. There is just one thing that I don’t think anyone has considered. Only a fool would think that people behind bars are celibate, no drugs are available, just ask the guard for a condom…..you know were I am going. Incarceration for eternity is NOT going to stop the spread of this killer. Thirty years does amount to half of your life and for a kid who was NOT robbing liquor stores nor strikes me as the type who had his pants hanging off of his ass as a fashion statement I think that was too harsh.
There will be no cure as long as the prevention is WORTH more than the cure. Just ask that asshole who jacked up the price of those drugs recently to the stratosphere. Truvada is on the same scale in my opinion as the electric car or synthetic oil (it kept the Nazi war machine running until the end) versus the oil companies. It was there all along (an alternative or a solution to the problem if you will) but the profits to be made before releasing it outweighed doing the right thing for the benefit of everyone.
Stache
@Bob LaBlah: Actually, there is a cure. Just get a stem cell transplant along with some gene modification of the CCR5-delta and walla cured. It’s been done already. Of course the cure could easily kill you but there it is.
You should watch Countdown to zero on HBO right now. They can actually manipulate the HIV to cure some cancers now too. Cynical me aside I just can’t believe we won’t have an all out cure by 20 years.
Eclatant
@Chris: They didn’t have sex without consent to sex. Rape would not have been an appropriate charge.
johnnyboy1988
@Masc Pride: Did you not read the study? Here are the highlights: “Although some of the HIV-negative partners became HIV positive (exactly how many will be revealed in later analyses), genetic testing of the HIV revealed that in all cases the virus came from someone other than the main partner.” Then later, “At a press conference, PARTNER study principal investigator Dr Jens Lundgren pointed out that this meant that there was a maximum 5% chance that over a ten-year period, one in ten HIV-negative partners in a gay couple who had unprotected anal sex might acquire HIV; equally, though, it was more likely that their chance of acquiring HIV from their partner was nearer to zero, and indeed could be zero.” I’m going to go ahead and predict that the findings of the study will support my arguments. And regarding my doctors, they are some of the smartest people in the world, it’s no surprise to me that after years and year of studying biology, anatomy, and virology, they would come to conclusions that, again, are supported by simple concepts anyone can understand. I’ll say it for the third time: ARVs kill viral particles in body fluids. If there’s nothing in your bodily fluids, how can you transmit anything? Yes, not everyone takes their meds regularly. The occasional person on meds will experience treatment failure. But for the vast majority of patients on ARVs, they experience an undetectable viral load that can be sustained for many, many years. This isn’t 1990. HIV meds WORK. There’s a reason HIV is not longer a death sentence for those with access to the medication. They are no longer toxic, they are durable, and they SAVE LIVES (including the lives of the greater public, not just those living with HIV).
johnnyboy1988
@alphacentauri: Truvada is NOT toxic. Where are you getting your information? Do some real, scientific research. Ask a doctor or HIV expert. Were the meds of the 90s toxic? Yes. But it is 2015. Meds now do their job and do it well. The occasional patient will experience negative side effects (AS WITH ALL MEDICATION), but Truvada is NOT for everyone. It’s not for those who can’t take it everyday. It’s not for those with liver/kidney problems. It’s not for those who can’t go to the doctor regularly. It’s not for those who struggle to make ends meet and have poor insurance coverage. But if you’re a healthy person who is committed to living healthily and working with your doctor to make sure you stay that way, and can afford it, it is a VERY viable solution. I have been on PREP for 2 years now, I believe. I get labs performed every 3 months. I have never tested positive for HIV, and I have never even had so much as a blip in any of my test results. My friends who are on it have had all had similar experiences. I have, on the other hand, been up all night worrying about a broken condom BEFORE I went on PREP. Don’t start saying that “condoms are more effective than PREP” because if PREP is used correctly, that’s just not true, it’s a lie. If a condom is used correctly (since there’s only one way to use it), it can still fail you.
Merv
It’s depressing to see so many commenters on this thread confused about the concept of consent. People having sex have the right to decide not only *if* they consent to sex, but to decide the *parameters* of that consent. If a heterosexual woman allows a man to rub his penis against her thighs, subject to the condition that he not insert it in her vagina, and he inserts it anyway, then he has violated her consent and he is culpable. If a gay man consents to sex, even bareback sex, on the condition that his partner not be knowingly HIV+, and his partner violates that condition, then he has violated that consent and is culpable. Law enforcement should use whatever tools are available to make sure he is punished.
alphacentauri
@dave lopes: This guy is not from Africa or those regions of Africa.
@johnnyboy1988: If you want to believe your lies go right ahead but PreP/Truvada is toxic it’s extremely bad for the liver, kidneys, bones, etc. and has negative short and long term side effects and then we have fools like you who take it and think it’s fine to bareback with anyone. I will not be surprised when you become HIV+ or have other STDs which you probably have since you are into barebacking.
alphacentauri
@johnnyboy1988: Condoms rarely break. Research has found that people who claim that they break for a person or frequently break for a person are simply people who lie and just bareback.
Merv
@alphacentauri: I’ve had anal sex only a handful of times in my life, and one of those times my condom shredded completely. Fortunately, I didn’t catch anything, but it was enough to convince me not to trust my life to a few microns of latex. That was the last time I had anal sex.
alphacentauri
@Merv: You must have used vasoline for lube, or used a condom that was way past the use date. I have never had a condom shred/break and let’s just say I’m not small or average.
Merv
@alphacentauri: Neither one. I used nothing but water-based lube. The condom definitely wasn’t old because I was only recently sexually active and didn’t have any old condoms. Maybe I nicked it with a fingernail putting it on, or maybe it was defective. I don’t know. All I know is that they are pretty flimsy devices to trust your life to.
Xzamilio
@Merv: What does that mean… “knowingly HIV positive”? All that means is the guy can lie about knowing he had HIV if the other partners come up positive, and furthermore, your analogy is false as one is rape and the other involves a consensual but based on false grounds. You stick your dick in someone when they did not permit you to… that’s rape. When you have sex with someone who did not disclose their HIV status to you… that’s sex under false pretenses. Not rape. And while I absolutely agree with you that Johnson should be punished for knowingly spreading HIV to these men (the length of the sentence I do not agree with), the risk of contracting HIV should give us some caution… more than simply asking someone if they are positive before engaging in barebacking and letting someone skeet all up in you. IF the parameters of your consent involves simply accepting an unconfirmed answer at face value — especially one involving the transmitting of STDs and STIs — then your parameters are fucked. He also had gonorrhea… is he culpable for spreading that even though they didn’t ask about that, or any other diseases, apparently?
Xzamilio
” All I know is that they are pretty flimsy devices to trust your life to.”
And yet, a thousand times more effective than “Are you HIV positive? No? Okay, then creampie my butthole!!”
alphacentauri
@Xzamilio: Don’t forget, “I’m undetectable/on meds so it’s fine to bareback!” and “I take PreP so it’s fine to do it raw!”
Merv
@Xzamilio: Knowingly HIV+ means testing positive for HIV. Sex under false pretenses is rape, at least under some circumstances. There was a case in California recently (People v. Morales) where a “friend” stayed a couple’s house after a party. He climbed into the woman’s bed while the boyfriend was away, and the woman, assuming it was her boyfriend, willingly engaged in sex until she discovered it was not who she thought it was. The man’s rape conviction was overturned on the technicality that she was not married, although the legislature has since closed the loophole. I think that similar laws should apply to HIV status, if they don’t already.
johnnyboy1988
@alphacentauri: OMG lolllll. “@johnnyboy1988: Condoms rarely break. Research has found that people who claim that they break for a person or frequently break for a person are simply people who lie and just bareback.” Youre trolling me right??? I cant respond to this lol I shouldn’t have engaged.
philipcfromnyc
Condoms can and do break. However, this does not happen often. During the course of my sexually active lifespan (which is far from over), condoms have broken twice — once with me on top, and once with me on the bottom. On both occasions, I was able to get PEP, and on both occasions, I insisted on paying about $250.00 for the PCR test (which was then available) several days later. However, the incidence of condoms breaking is really very, very low. Furthermore, transmission from an HIV positive person to an HIV negative person when the HIV negative person is on the bottom and no condom is used is by no means assured from one encounter. It is, of course, very difficult to quantify the probability of transmission from a single encounter, but it is not high. I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT PEOPLE HAVE UNSAFE SEX — I am merely pointing out the facts.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Xzamilio
@Merv: Note the part “… assuming it was her boyfriend, willingly engaged in sex until she discovered it was not who she thought it was.” Did he disclose to her that he was her boyfriend, and THEN she engaged in a sex act with him thinking it was her man, only to stop when she realized it was not him. No parameters were set in that case… nothing was set, if I am to go by what you presented. The only one that went into that scenario with somewhat full cognizance of the situation was the guy who was having sex with his best friend’s girl. And what kind of legislation says that a rape victim would have to married for it to constitute rape? No, that kind of loophole is egregiously unconstitutional
I spoke too specifically in saying that sex under false pretenses is not rape, and your example somewhat demonstrates that, but the example has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese. I knew what “knowingly HIV+” meant, but what I found issue with was the special out it gave individuals who didn’t know they had HIV but still went around having unprotected sex. Would those individuals then be prosecuted for having the virus but not knowing it because they never got themselves tested? It sounds like I’m defending Johnson, but I am not… I am only saying that he did not rape anyone in this scenario, and that some level of personal accountability needs to be present with individuals engaging with unprotected under the guise that the other person is clean because they said they were clean.
Xzamilio
@alphacentauri: It’s never fine for me to do it raw, unless we get tested together and get our results together. In any other case, it’s the rubber or nothing.
Xzamilio
No, I take that back. I’d still use a condom… false negatives and all that jazz lol
dave lopes
@alphacentauri: “This guy is not from Africa or those regions of Africa.”
Stop your nonsense. It does not matter if he is from Africa or not.
He is of African ancestry, and naming himself after an african ethnic group is not racism.
Again, research the meaning of the word racism.
Merv
@Xzamilio: Whether the law is unconstitutional or not, the defendant walks, because the benefit of unconstitutionality would go to the defendant.
It’s true that the policy I support might give a perverse disincentive for some people to get tested, but that’s not sufficient reason to allow people to infect others with impunity. Besides, that’s a marginal disincentive. Most people are not sociopaths, and since there is effective treatment for HIV, there is already plenty of incentive to get tested.
I purposely did not use the word rape. But sex that violates the parameters of consent is akin to rape, whatever you want to call it. There is a sense of being violated. I put a very high value on consent, including the parameters of consent, and hope most people do, too.
As for accountability, the accountability for people who have unprotected sex is that they will probably end up losing the gamble eventually, if they do it for too long.
Xzamilio
@Merv: Okay.
youarekiddingme
@Xzamilio:
Your points are awesome! I just thought I would add a little to it:
Both RNA and PCR tests are extremely accurate (especially at not giving false negative reports) HOWEVER, for both tests it takes 2 to 8 weeks after exposure to HIV for sufficient antibodies to show up on the test to give a positive result. So, if you are actually infected after having unprotected sex with someone the day before (or your viral load increases because pills become ineffective for some reason), even if both partners use a home test kit…one can still be positive and test come out negative! Btw, the home test kits (rapid kits) are now about as effective as the RNA/PCR tests for not giving false negative results.
This guy knew he was positive. He had the intent. He infected other people. Were they foolish…yes. Did they deserve it? I don’t blame the victim in any circumstance. If you leave the front door open you don’t deserve to be burglarized (might be stupid) but you don’t deserve to be burglarized).
The whole idea of the “viral load” being zero great but… It is zero on that date is was tested. You have no idea what it is on any other given date. The doctor tells you that your viral load can and does fluctuate (that’s the reason you are tested regularly). Anyone who says that they would have unprotected sex with a person who has an undetectable viral load is playing R@ssian R@ulette as much as any person who doesn’t practice safe sex.
Truvada and other drugs. I think they’re miraculous for the treatment of HIV. I’m not sure how I feel about using them as a prevention for HIV. ALL drugs have risks/side effects. There are no arguments among medical professionals on that point. I guess the individual must decide if the risk outweighs the benefits. For the treatment of those infected with HIV there is no question…best line of drugs to come out yet.
Condoms are still #1 in my book (behind abstinence) because of the ability to also prevent many STD’s as well as HIV.
youarekiddingme
@youarekiddingme: The system blocked me the first time for saying: “R@ssian R@ullette!”
johnnyboy1988
@youarekiddingme: FWIW, meds are becoming so effective that now some doctors are recommending that patients who achieve undetectable viral loads only get labs performed every 6-12 months. It used to be so much more often bc HIV was not as well understood and meds not as effective. Also, viral load does fluctuate, but its not in huge swings. if theres only something like 30 or 40 copies per millileter of the virus for a day or so once every few months, thats still a much better chance of preventing acquisition of HIV than having sex with people who have not been tested (correctly) since their last sexual encounter. Ask any HIV doctor – HIV is not an easy virus to transmit. It’s relatively weak at a biological level. A viral spike here and there isnt rly as dangerous as it seems, when someone who doesnt truly their status could have something like 50,000 viral copies per milliliter.
Black Pegasus
If he had blonde hair and blue eyes the Internet and twitter would have broken by now filled with “outrage.”
I don’t give two funks about him because he was a snow queen who ONLY hooked up with non Black men, yet
my personal feelings has nothing to do with Justice and fairness. This trial and subsequent conviction was a travesty!
alphacentauri
@Xzamilio: Plus, don’t forget that people do lie/cheat or do it raw with someone who they cheat…
@Black Pegasus: Did he date bi and gay black men at all? Or was he only attracted to white men? I saw pics of him with other gay black men but I’m not sure if he dated or slept with them?
Realitycheck
@Black Pegasus: A snow queen? Could you be any more nasty? You are a product of hate and that is so sad.
Look at it from any point of view, Michael Johnson should not be in jail he deserves a re trial!!
Masc Pride
@johnnyboy1988: “Did you not read the study?”
I wouldn’t have known about all these details if I hadn’t read it. Did YOU read the part where the Partner researchers say their PRELIMINARY findings should not be used the way you and courthouse have tried to use them? How about the part where they still advise people to always use protection? The infidelities could’ve been with partners who were also undetectable. No way to know.
“I’m going to go ahead and predict that the findings of the study will support my arguments.”
So by your own admission, this one study (in its preliminary stage) isn’t solid proof of what you’re arguing right now.
“And regarding my doctors, they are some of the smartest people in the world…”
They’re not smart if they’ve already drawn conclusions based on one study that is still in its preliminary stages of research. Smart doctors do not do this. However, I don’t believe that your doctors actually did either. You’ve already manipulated quite a bit information in here. You clearly have a very active imagination.
Undetectable DOES NOT mean a viral load of zero. It DOES NOT mean all the HIV is out of your system. The test measures blood. Men who are undetectable can still have high amounts of HIV in their semen.
As I said, HIV was technically never a death sentence. HIV can still cause AIDS, and as you added, medications can stop working effectively. People still die of AIDS every day.
youarekiddingme
@johnnyboy1988: Yes you can have these “blips” in viral loads but the fluctuations are not as miniscule (30 or 40 copies per milliliter) as you portray them to be. They can go from undetectable (50/milliliter) to detectable levels based on many circumstances. Some include (other infecctions, drug resistance, etc). It doesn’t mean the HIV treatment won’t work but rather sometimes it may need to be adjusted.
Here’s a good article for you to read on the subject:
http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Viral-load/page/1044622
It’s from aidsmap.com. They talk all about viral load. I learned a lot by reading the information provided by them and other experts on the subject. Viral loads were checked in the blood but not in other bodily fluids (according to them), so the risk is still present (unknow what the risk is at this time) in transmitting the disease. They get their information from a host of doctors and institutions around the world with the most up-to-date data available.
I agree that having casual unprotected sex with an untested person is insane! I also, unfortunately, see the risks involved here. Practicing safe sex is still the answer. Regardless of the viral load count at any given time.
I would like to see the medical information you have that says health care professionals are endorsing only being checked every 6-12 months on viral loads…I’ve never seen that before?
I would also like to see where an HIV doctor says, “HIV is not an easy virus to transmit.” Can’t imagine any doctor saying that after the pandemic of the 1980’s…On second thought, I guess there are wackos in every profession!
I lived through the pandemic (in the height of my sexual prime) so I’m not one of these scared, anti-HIV/AIDS people either. I do know the risks. They are very real. I lost many, many close friends and relatives. Please don’t take my statements and warnings as being one of those “I hate people with HIV”…because I don’t…just don’t want others to mistakenly believe that all is well. This disease is insidious…it can mutate…it can become drug resistant…the battle is not over. All will be well, when there’s a cure!
Masc Pride
@Masc Pride: *People still die of AIDS-related illnesses every day.
@CCTR: You’re another one that keeps arguing neg guys are responsible for looking out for themselves while totally downplaying the responsibiliy a poz guy has to disclose (whether bareback or not). It makes all your arguments seem very subjective.
I never said infection is ONLY a result of non-disclosure, but given this case, we are discussing HIV infection because of non-disclosure. You’re going off on a bunch of tangents that have nothing to do with the actual story. Johnson wasn’t on trial for “homosexual acts”. Johnson wasn’t on trial for having HIV. Johnson was on trial for knowingly spreading the virus, and he was found guilty (scroll up and read Kieru’s comment).
CCTR
@Masc Pride:I am arguing that everyone is responsible for looking out for themselves in practicing safer sex. I agree that a person that is aware of their HIV status has a responsibility to practice safer sex, whether their status is positive or negative. I also believe that a positive status disclosure/discussion can be part of safe sex practices. I do still feel that these disclosure laws are bias and outdated.
Johnson was not on trial for having HIV, but why are there no laws for people in general willing to accept/exchange bodily fluids without taking precautions? That would be a better way of putting more irresponsible people in jail, if it’s all about protecting from a public health point of view.
I was/am going off on a bunch of tangents trying to put the disclosure laws into some sort of perspective beyond this one case.
Michael Johnson is being punished for his non-disclosure under the law, he is in jail and one of his past sex partners has tested positive for HIV. What has this done to stop the transmission of HIV? Is he not able to transmit HIV in prison? Is the sex partner that seroconverted not able to transmit the virus? Will they both adhere to treatment? Why are people not disclosing? Why are people having unprotected sex knowing the risk of HIV/STD transmission? It’s not as simply as throwing a law at one side of the issue (the person that is knowingly HIV positive) and thinking that it is a best approach on behalf of the state at protecting people. The reality is that these laws were the result of the fear of AIDS when HIV treatment was not very successful, and an attempt to quarantine, deter and punish men from and for having sex with men.
We really need to think about how much our community and society as a whole needs to stratify individuals based on HIV status, masculinity, musculature, skin color, financial status etc.
I could go on but it’s ok for us to disagree.
youarekiddingme
@CCTR: I guess I agree with you in part and disagree in part…I think the intent of the law has been totally bastarized in this case (as in many cases). I think the original intent was as an enhancement in the situation of a rape (for instance) when a person knowingly had HIV/AIDS and attempts to infect their victim. I also think it was intended to be used when a person who was positive, assaulted a victim with the intent to cause open injuries where the exchange of bodily fluid (blood) was a likely outcome (thereby infecting the victim). Biting a victim was first believed to be a way of transmitting HIV (discovered later, not so much…unless the infected person himself was bleeding from his mouth).
Do I think someone has the responsibility to notify a partner of their known HIV/AIDS/STD status? ABSOLUTELY! Human Decency if nothing else dictates that.
Is this law a good one? I think, in limited settings it is. I also don’t blame victims either. Is 30 years (in this case) fitting? NO WAY!
Masc Pride
@CCTR: As I said before, there is a difference between being stupid and being malicious. Unfortunately, there are no laws against being stupid. There are legal consequences for intentionally harming people.
Does sending a person convicted of of first degree murder stop homicides? No. But it does remove that particular murderer from the general public, which does make things safer for civilized people. Who knows how many more people Johnson would’ve taped and infected had he not been caught and convicted. Also, people have to be punished for crimes. When we were kids, our parents punished us when we did bad things, which helped us understand the difference between right and wrong. Prison is basically a “time out” for adults. As I also stated before, fear of laws and punishment is the only thing keeping some people civilized. These laws are also around (and need to stay around) because of people like Johnson and many others who have been found guilty of intentionally infecting people with diseases. No matter how HIV treatment advances, criminal transmission is still intentionally harming another person. Syphilis and gonorrhea can be cured, yet MO law says it is still illegal for people to intentionally set out to infect others with those diseases.
You’re other arguments seem to be more about the ways gays treat each other, which really wasn’t even what this story was about. No need to go on.
johnnyboy1988
@youarekiddingme: I was throwing out a number for low viral load. Even a few hundred copies or more here and there just doesnt scare me or inspire me to throw someone in prison. As for the monitoring, 6 months is standard practice in Boston at Fenway Health, one of the premiere GLBT-focused health centers. A few months ago I read an article about some doctors pushing for 1 year. Its by no means a universal conclusion at this point, but my point was that for some patients, its just not necessary to go in all the time and keep getting the same undetectable results. And finally, HIV is NOT an easy virus to transmit. There’s a reason that people have unprotected sex with HIV positive partners many times and do not test positive. There’s a reason HIV isn’t passsd on thru oral sex or razors. It’s weak – saliva kills kt, oxygen kills it, water kills it. Most of the time, it takes a LOT of exposure to transmit. Are there exceptjons? Yes. To @mascpride, all I can say is that you can call me a liar, but I know so much about this topic because I used to be terrified of HIV. Paranoid even – up all night anxiety attacks about a broken condom. I then spoke to experts, did a lot of research, and learned a lot. I now know so much about it and it doesnt scare me. I know how to take care of myself. I am still HIV negative and will always be, because I make the right choices, based on what I have learned. I will always speak the truth to other gay men about this topic, based on science. Not fear. That study is not finalized but again, its simple biology. Lets wait a year or what have you, but the findings will be the same. ARVs save lives and prevent infections, simple as that. I am still waiting on genotypic proof that the plaintiff in question passed on the virus to the defendant who tested positive.
youarekiddingme
@johnnyboy1988: Just so you are aware…I, quite frequently (I would say always) disagree with Mascpride so please don’t place me in the same discussion or disagreement with him. If some of our points in this discussion happen to be the same–merely a coincidence.
Back your argument. Your saying that, “even a few hundred copies or more here and there doesnt scare me or inspire me…” Do you know what the threshold for an undetectable viral load is in a person who is being treated with ART (Antiretroviral Therapy)? The max is 75 copies!! Your statement of, “even a few hundred copies or more…” makes NO sense. At that point, a person is no longer classified as undetectable!!
Are you also aware that even at undetectable levels (in the blood), the virus has been found in semen or vaginal fluids?
The virus is NOT killed by OXYGEN! The virus is killed by exposure to air which causes the medium that surrounds it like the blood/semen etc., to dry out and it then dies. Exposure to oxygen itself does not kill HIV.
As far as viral load testing is concerned…that should be done every 3-6 months. (unless meds are changed and then every 2-8 weeks).
I don’t know anything about Boston Fenway Health…but they’re not up to date on latest best practices on HIV care if they gave you all those incorrect numbers that you quoted above. You really do need to do some more research. Try to just start at aids.gov
You need to read that article I gave you in the previous post, of if you prefer…here’s another:
https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/just-diagnosed-with-hiv-aids/understand-your-test-results/viral-load/
Do yourself a favor (especially in the area of HIV…get some education). I watched many, many people die. Your whole idea about “undetectable load” and “minor blips” are going to get you sick. If HIV were so “difficult” to transmit…why did so many men die in the 1980’s and 1990’s? Please, can you show me the source (as I asked before) who said that “HIV is not an easy virus to transmit.”
youarekiddingme
@youarekiddingme: If you could give me that doctor’s name who said the virus is not easy to transmit…I’d love to contact him/her so that I can send them to the proper agency to get a little more education on the subject themselves…
youarekiddingme
@johnnyboy1988: Oh, just noticed…sorry. You were “just throwing out a number” on viral load…I should have known! Duh!
Later in your post you say how you used to be terrified of HIV. Then you “spoke to experts and did a lot of research.” I guess that’s what led me to believe that you were speaking from specific numbers…
Btw, water DOES NOT KILL HIV…Hot water does (small detail I know). Seriously though, do read the articles that I sent you the links to and also do some additional research as well. Someone has been steering you in some of the wrong directions…
Masc Pride
@johnnyboy1988: I’m not calling you a liar. It just seems like you’re taking information the wrong way. youarekiddingme is usually full of crap, so the fact that we can agree on some stuff here says a lot.
However, it’s extremely hard to believe that Harvard doctors would discuss preliminary findings of one study as conclusive proof that there is absolutely zero risk in barebacking with undetectable HIV+ partners, even harder to believe they would discuss this with patients. As I mentioned, the Partner researchers even stated that their study shouldn’t be used that way.
We don’t know that there was no phylogenetic testing in this trial. All the articles that are excusing Johnson’s behavior seem to divert off into lessons about undetectable viral loads and the lowered risk of transmission, yet none of them bother to state whether or not Johnson was actually undetectable. Either way, under MO law, if a person doesn’t let their partner(s) know that they have certain STD’s, they are guilty. Johnson tested positive for other STD’s that were also illegal to not disclose by MO law. This guy was going to jail one way or another. He says he told everyone. Several guys say that isn’t true. Someone was definitely lying, and the jury decided it was Johnson. They probably had a very hard time believing that people still chose to sleep with this guy after he supposedly informed all of them of having multiple STD’s, including HIV.
johnnyboy1988
@Masc Pride: This has all come down to semantics. Would any of my doctors go on record, in a newspaper or academic journal, making these claims? No. These were informal conversations in an examinatiom room based on years of experience in the field. The same can said of PREP. Lots of doctors always knew that ARVs would be effective as PREP. But could they start doling it out? No, they had to wait for studies and regulations to catch up. Yes, thats how the world works. But, based on their understanding of HIV and these meds, from years of study, they can make educated guesses. Again, I’m going to trust their opinion.
johnnyboy1988
@youarekiddingme: Again…we’re really getting in the weeds here. Did I oversimplify when I said oxygen kills HIV? Apparently, yes. But I don’t think that “The virus is killed by exposure to air which causes the medium that surrounds it like the blood/semen…” negates my larger point. And I was drunk when I made that last comment about particles per milliliter. Again, I was throwing out ANOTHER number. I am not a virologist. And I’m usually on my phone, so I can’t be bothered to look up links I found months ago.
But, I just did some Googling since I’m finally on a desktop. Here’s one example: http://globalnews.ca/news/1307353/hiv-isnt-easily-transmitted-by-sex-canadian-doctors-says/ The points in this article are basically all I’m saying. Or this one: http://www.thebodypro.com/content/65486/study-estimates-hiv-is-transmitted-during-1-in-900.html If the best guess is that HIV is transmitted 1 in 900 sex acts…that’s not exactly a powerful virus, at a biological level.
Am I minimizing HIV’s ability to savagely kill people? No, not at all.. But on a purely molecular level, when it comes down to whether or not a viral particle will transfer from one person to another, that viral particle has the odds stacked against it. And that’s my point. I have more than one friend who has dated someone, had unprotected sex many many times (in one instance, over many months), went in with their new partner to get tested together, and learned the other person was HIV positive. Their viral load? Crazy high. But still no infection. I assume my friends were topping, and that likely pokes a small hole in this logic, but overall, the same truth still prevails. It takes a LOT of exposure to transmit HIV. Tears in the membrane, a large volume of semen, and most importantly, high viral load. An occasional viral blip, even a relatively large one, does not scare me enough to say that this kid should be in prison, assuming he was on medication. I don’t know that he was, because all of the articles I have read are embarrassingly sparse on crucial details.
Now, are there exceptions to these assumptions? Yes. Will there inevitably be an anomaly? Like that lesbian who acquired HIV from another woman by sharing a sex toy? Or the like, ONLY recorded case of oral transmission between two methheads who had bloody mouths? Yes. Would I be willing to accept that in those extreme cases, someone might deserve to be punished for ill intentions? Yes. But laws should not stem from these exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately, fear often does.
I can’t find the article I read about monitoring recommendations. But, again, I know that 6 months is standard practice already at Fenway Health (assuming you have achieved viral suppression and doctors trust your ability to successfully maintain a daily regimen), which is where I and most of my friends in Boston go for all things health-related, and I would assume other places places have this practice as well, or will soon, because Fenway Health is a leader in GLBT healthcare. It’s one of the most highly respected and influential centers for this field in the world, if not the most highly respected. Everyone there is a Harvard-affiliated doctor ((that I’ve met anyway), and they do a ton of work to prevent HIV and loads and loads of life-saving and world-changing research. They also turn no one away, no matter their ability to pay for any services or medication. Anyway, I trust my life and health with them, because I trust their expertise.
youarekiddingme
@johnnyboy1988: johnnyboy, did you even READ the link you sent to me on how “difficult” it is to transmit hiv? Here’s the second paragraph: “In a statement published Friday, the doctors also said that these days HIV transmission varies from low-to-impossible with the help of factors such as condom use and drug therapy to lower viral loads.” CONDOM USE AND DRUG THERAPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not because it’s near impossible to contract HIV but because there are great drugs and condoms available!!!!! Read your own posts!!
Drunk posting and throwing out numbers is not a good way to debate your point btw.
Your second post…You were WRONG in your quote of that article as well! That quote was for HETEROSEXUAL SEX! The researchers also stated that there were a number of variables involved in the study that made that number highly suspect in and of itself.
Your incapacity for reading proven medical data (aids.gov) and trusting information that was given to you by “a trusted doctor at a highly regarded medical institution…Fenway Health,” may result in blind trust in someone who won’t be present to later support you when you need them. The CDC, Aids.gov and other aids organizations will put all their numbers, recommendations, checkups, viral load information, information on what is “undetectable” and so on…IN WRITING. Not only in writing, but that information is published and available to the general public.
The information you are receiving (verbally I might add) from these “Harvard-affiliated” doctors means NOTHING! Have them put their money where their mouths are. Have them put all that wonderful information that you just wrote in writing. Have them submit it to the government/CDC, etc. Have them give it to YOU in writing. See how quickly they shrivel up and fold into the corner. The info is BS. The articles you gave me above supports my point. The disease is VERY DIFFICULT to transmit given the current medications available and proper condom use (not because it’s a difficult disease to transmit). Re-read the second paragraph.
Please. No more debate. You clearly have it in your mind that bareback sex is totally safe (1 in 900 times anyway). You believe that HIV is no big threat (so I guess it can’t become drug resistant or mutate) so there really isn’t anything else I can say to you.
Good luck in your future! Please though…Play Safe!!!
johnnyboy1988
I’m going to append one more idea to try to sum up how I feel:
Should someone be punished for intentionally spreading HIV? Yes. In the same way you can sue someone for hitting you with their car or go to jail for manslaughter or what not. Intentionally spreading HIV is a terrible thing to do. That’s why we have a US court system.
But should there be a LAW criminalizing it? No, bc it is counterproductive to preventing future transmissions, and because anymore, anyone who is successfully on ARVs is very, very unlikely to transmit anyway. This is KEY because in cases like this, where there is not (yet) genotypic proof that he actually did transmit the virus, it can result in injustice, and blaming someone who ACTUALLY TOOK THE MEASURES TO PREVENT INFECTION for someone else’s infection that they likely got form NOT TAKING THE SAME MEASURES. I believe the defendant in all likelihood got HIV from another hookup who didn’t know they had HIV (and perhaps still doesn’t…) Even if genotypic testing proves that this case is the ONE IN A MILLION case where someone successfully on ARVs also transmitted the virus, then that does not give this law any worth. It still incites fear and discourages people from GETTING TESTED. If we ALL got tested regularly and everyone who tested positive went on ARVs, HIV would cease to exist.
youarekiddingme
Don’t ANYONE believe that LAST SENTENCE…UTTER BULLSHIT!! CDC, UNAIDS, World Health Organization, International Aids Society and a myriad of others DO NOT SUPPORT that statement anywhere in their literature!
Anyone who tests positive and is on ARV’s…STILL has the possibility of transmitting HIV (undetectable loads only apply to blood) not semen or vaginal fluid where HIV can still be present.
Viral Loads can fluctuate while on ARV’s and can be influenced by things such as infections (yes, things that attack the IMMUNE SYSTEM) can cause Viral Loads to spike into the detectable (transmittable) ranges. ARV’s also have to be adjusted because HIV becomes drug-resistant.
The only way HIV ceases to exist is through safe sex (not being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while havng sex), ARV’s, correct condom use, regular testing and eventually a cure. ARV use only while HIV positive is utter bullshit! Check with the national organizations listed above.
johnnyboy1988
@youarekiddingme: I actually have a long comment that was flagged as spam about my thoughts on the CDC’s website and what not, since they are a bureaucratic PR agency before anything else (I work in the world of policy), that was mistakenly flagged as spam. Im sure it will piss you off once approved so I apologize in advance for your reaction.
youarekiddingme
@johnnyboy1988: Don’t really care what is said about CDC…not an opponent or proponent. I haven’t looked at their website lately and don’t really care what is says. I do care what facts they put out regarding HIV and Aids however. Those are the issues I am pointing out. They are one of several world organizations that has the same views on HIV and AIDS regarding the opposing view that you posted in your last sentence. Some of the other organizations (which I’m sure you will attack as well) are UNAIDS, WHO and International Health Organization…(among others).
I don’t work in the world of policy so I’m sure you have some very valid points. My points are not in policy…there are in documented, provable scientific evidence. Double blind studies are actually the best. I’m not a scientist either. I don’t really care for “opinions” when it comes to science either. Hypothosis…then go about proving or disproving the hypothosis (pretty straight forward). I always liked science that way, but pretty much sucked at it in school!
Attack, attack, attack! Oh my gosh…Unfortunately, they have PUBLISHED, DOCUMENTED FINDINGS which IRREVOCABLY DISPUTE the last sentence you made of your previous post (as I stated above).
johnnyboy1988
@youarekiddingme: I see now that my long comment was never approved. Here it is in two (or more) parts: Chill. You are making quite a few jumps here. I clearly don’t think bareback sex is totally safe, or I wouldn’t have said things previously, such as the the fact that I would never have unprotected sex with someone who claims to be negative, unless they had the test results from the last 24 hours in their hands to prove it (and even then, that doesn’t sound very sexy). You’re picking apart everything I’m saying but almost everything you say makes sense to me, because this is a subjective topic. This isn’t an academic journal, it’s basically a blog. Yes, great drugs make it near impossible for HIV to be transmitted, but it’s also the case that the virus is relatively weak
johnnyboy1988
Regarding the articles you sent, first of all, I am very loathe to put my faith in the policy advice by official agencies government of the United States. I actually work in the world of advancing policy. AIDS.gov and the CDC are not concerned wth reality. They are very, very averse to change, and are entirely concerned with liability. They are first and foremost a public relations agency and secondly a bureaucracy. They are not unique in this regard, but you can’t read what they have to say literally. Their publish scientific findings but are likely to interpret and translate it differently than a scientist working for a non-governmental agency. I wouldn’t be surprised to find the same kind of information about walking outside during a storm because your risk of getting struck by lightning is higher. Notice the common use of “may” on that page. They are concerned with covering every single possibility in these pubic recommendations. Do I blame them? No, because they are an authoritative force, and flatly saying that “the chances of your viral load spiking and being a danger are slim…” would never be published because they do not want to be liable for any one person who could twist that into a lawsuit or PR fiasco.
johnnyboy1988
…For the longest time, the CDC site also said that you should never have oral sex with someone who is HIV positive. Even though I believe the closest quantification is that 1/10,000 exposures would lead to transmission of the virus through that route. But of course that’s enough of a chance for what they do. Regarding the AIDS map article, the point that that there is still a RISK does not negate my point. I clearly understand that there is still a RISK that viral particles may be present in bodily fluids such as semen. There will always be A RISK in any kind of behavior, especially unsafe sex. In the same way that when you get on a plane, there is a risk it will crash. But do I honestly, from the bottom of my heart believe that this risk should pose enough of a threat to warrant a 30-year sentence of this man (when I have yet to see genotypic proof that the plaintiff acquired the virus from him)? Or that doctors should ignite fear in all their patients who engage in SAFE(R) gay sex? No. I truly believe that the risk of acquiring HIV from that method PALES (pails? no time for spellcheck) in comparison to the threat of having unprotected sex with someone who truly doesn’t know their status but claims to be negative. That has always been my point.
johnnyboy1988
@youkiddingme: Continued….
I got this below from http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/fall-2011/exposure-infection-biology-hiv-transmission.
“After a fluid containing HIV comes into contact with a mucous membrane, HIV still needs to complete a difficult journey before it can cause an infection. In some cases, HIV is not able to complete this journey and infection does not occur. The mucous membranes are vulnerable but not defenseless. These membranes are covered with a layer of cells (called epithelial cells) that are tightly joined together. This helps to prevent germs from entering the body and causing an infection. Some mucous membranes (such as the rectum) have a single layer of cells while others (such as the foreskin, urethra, mouth and vagina) have multiple layers. The more layers, the more protection there is. The mucous itself also contains chemicals and antibodies that can kill germs. Even if HIV manages to pass through the mucous and the layer of cells, there are still ways the body can prevent an HIV infection.
johnnyboy1988
@youarekiddingme FWIW, regarding your comment about heterosexual sex, I think the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sex, while valid and scientifically important, isn’t necessarily something to be up in arms about for the purposes of this discussion. Both gay people and straight people acquire HIV and both are at risk of infections and criminalization. My points have never been meant to be exclusive to gay people. All people should protect themselves against HIV and educate themselves.
OH and I’m not going to ask my doctor to put anything in writing lol because….I don’t need to. Why would I? I make healthy choices and trust their expertise. Also, I would never want a doctor who only spews out BS he memorized from a textbook. My doctors treat me like an educated, intelligent human being who can make his own choices, and I expect nothing less. They give me their best recommendations and I follow them. I have not trusted every doctor I’ve ever had, but when it come to my sexual health, I trust them with my life. FWIW they also still recommend using condoms. I am not disputing any of this. What I am arguing is that the reality of science is not currently reflected in the world of policy or the law.
johnnyboy1988
And finally, last comment of all to finish up my LONG comment:
Also what the hell is the CDC gonna do with a letter from a random doctor??? LOL. That’s not how the world works. Doctors have to say certain things in public to cover their ass. They always will. My primary doctor’s exact words were “I can in no way professionally condone unprotected sex at all. I will always recommend condoms. But, if I’m being real with you, from one intelligent person to another, undetectable means….” And he explained the science to me. Did he say, “GO OUT AND HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX”? Lol no. But he understood the reality of the world and the reality of science and was straight with me. I am not condoning that anyone have unprotected sex with anyone else, and neither was he. Though, I don’t see why you couldn’t call up Fenway Health (or any other hospital really) and ask what they think. Though they may also give you a BS answer, because THAT’S how the world works! lol
youarekiddingme
@johnnyboy1988: Wow, 8 comments later…Glad you agree to wear a condom!!
As far as comments about CDC and others…well, the older comments about not having oral sex with HIV infecter persons…I was there. Yes, that was the original recommendation, but so was not kissing someone with HIV. All of those recommendations evolved as the understanding of Grid/Gay Plague/Gay Cancer/HIV/AIDS was better understood. Research was slow in the beginning. No funding. I think you’re reaching a bit with those “stories.” Yes they are cautious, but I want caution when it comes to my life. We obviously disagree.
We agree about the point of the article. The guy was screwed on the sentence. I’m sure the sentence and gene mapping (as proof) can be brought to light as evidence when that occurs.
Your response about having test answers within 24 hours of unprotected sex…well, that’s another area we disagree. A man CAN be infected and not show as positive for up to 3 MONTHS after being infected and still pass on the virus to another person. Believe it or not. Check into the 24 hour tests and the RNA/PCR Tests if you don’t believe me.
You’re right about calling Fenway or any other hospital. They WILL give me the same answers that the CDC and other health organizations give…for the same reason (because there IS risk…hence there is liability). The doctor/hospital is responsible for their medical “advice.” I know a little about doctors (my best friend, two other friends and cousin are doctors). That’s how I knew the doctor you referred to wouldn’t put such statements in writing (to you–not the CDC or anyone else) because of the liability of making such claims against accepted medical practice (not the correct phrase). No one asked you to have your doctor “spew out bs he memorized from a textbook.” I would HOPE that your physician keeps copies of the latest PDR and other professional trade journals available to him for quick reference so he doesn’t need to “memorize” such imporant information.
You make many references to articles using the word “may.” Can I suggest to you that the words, “ALWAYS and EVERY, and CERTAINTY” are words that are very infrequently used in the scientific community. Look that up as well. I think that you will find this to be true as well. Diving onto a grenade “may” kill you. Touching two live wires “may” electrocute you. Holding a hot pan “may” burn you (not necessarily though). It’s the amount of risk that I object to. That’s the difference here. You are fine with saying that “undetectable” means that a person cannot transmit the virus. I say bullshit. Probably won’t. Is there a possibility…yes. What are the chances? Depends. Does the person have another infection, flu? Viral load can be for shit…no longer undetectable status.
You continue to state how “weak” the virus is yet the infection rate is climbing every year. You probably weren’t (and many of the doctor’s weren’t) around during the pandemic. If it is such a weak virus, how did so many people die?
You know how the world works? Get a few years older…you may then learn how the world works. You know about “policy”, I know about life experience. Do you have a husband/partner? It doesn’t sound like it if you’re getting recommendations on sexual health from a doctor at a hospital. I hope you are in a committed relationship. I wish you the best.
You know what…Don’t answer any of those questions.
I’m pretty much done with this. I’m glad most people don’t believe the way you do. I’m glad that you aren’t scared anymore. Wonderful.
.