Follow
Subscribe
Imprisoned for HIV
Did you know that in some states you can go to jail for not disclosing your HIV status? There are laws, in 32 states no less, that have been built on stigma and fear and allow for people, like Nick Rhoades, to be sent to jail. Rhoades was sent to prison for not disclosing his HIV+ status to a one-time partner, even though he used a condom and his viral load was, at the time, undetectable. Said partner was never infected and yet Rhoades' life was turned completely upside down. CNN has the full story which I urge you to read.
I recently worked with the Sero Project, a nonprofit whose focus is to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions of people with HIV for non-disclosure of their HIV status, potential or perceived HIV exposure or HIV transmission, among other things. Their site is a resource center that is not only combatting stigma and fear based laws, but protecting those that it need it most. They've got a useful map on their homepage so you can find out what your states statues are and show you how to take action to help get them removed.
I fear that this is something that not many people are/were aware of. I know I wasn't. But I'm glad it's starting to get the attention it deserves.
How many of you knew about these laws?
Comments
Submitted by 4mulajeff (not verified) on Tue, 2012-08-07 22:28.
I agree 100% about disclosing HIV status when being intimate, it's the right thing to do. Irregardless of status, wear a condom for your own peace of mind. However, I think a law mandating disclosure is pushing it. Your statement "If they cannot deal with it, there is always someone else that can" makes a lot of sense as well. Sadly, there are those who make it known that they would never even consider going on a casual date with someone who is HIV+. For me, HIV status is not an issue. There are safe ways to be intimate with someone with HIV, and I've been with a few in my time.
Submitted by whiskerburn25 on Tue, 2012-08-07 22:35
'a few in your time' ... how magnanimous of you...
Submitted by 4mulajeff (not verified) on Wed, 2012-08-08 21:12.
Are you disturbed because I said "a few" and not more? It was just a figure of speech. I was trying to make a point that there are men out there, like myself, to whom HIV status is not an issue and I was speaking from personal experience. Forgive me for trying to reply to the first post about there should be a law about disclosing HIV status.
Submitted by whiskerburn25 on Wed, 2012-08-08 22:01
Your response comes off as if we're some sort of inferior objects to be considered with contempt. 'Figure of speech'? I think you could say the same about Hitler.
Submitted by dad4boy29 on Fri, 2012-08-10 00:10
You come off as reactionary and inconsiderate. Your initial response was crass and shallow. I'm sure you're not so rude in person or with friends. I'm thinking you and the poster to which you respond agree on more than you disagree.
Submitted by tallmuscvers on Sat, 2012-08-11 12:15
Irregardless? Really??
Submitted by trevwa on Wed, 2012-08-08 02:01
To B_mystyle,
Wow, well - why not make it easier on everyone, and just make it law that HIV+ people get branded on their forehead, just to make sure that they are understood as a threat, a detriment, and treated as the very disease of AIDS itself.
May I remind you, that people as esteemed as Kerry Mullis (The person who figured out how to read DNA- Nobel Prize Winner) has spoken critically of HIV theory? Yes, HIV as a cause for AIDS is still a theory.
So, maybe before we demonize people who are infected with this, or any virus - before we blame anyone for our own bodily healths, for our own sexual conduct - and run them through our retributive courts and into prisons- we respect each other as people, and not as if 'some people' are marked by the devil. The well-being of our bodies is related to all facets of being a human- including social and tribal life.
What does this kind of law actually do to help anyone?
Submitted by son4dilf (not verified) on Thu, 2012-08-09 05:55.
Such laws do not serve to "brand" or "demonise" anyone with HIV. Not everyone with HIV is socially responsible and these laws are there to hold accountable anyone who has ever intentionally or unintentionally put someone at risk of infection. That said, I don't see why the poor sod is sent to prison despite practising safe sex with his partner. Another example of the court system in the US being overly pedantic perhaps.
In Australia, the state of New South Wales enforces a similar law while the state of Victoria doesn't. I'm sure the guy I knew in Sydney, NSW would have liked for the law to have been in place when his then-partner knowingly infected him with HIV out of the twisted logic that they are more likely to stay together if both were sero-converted. Because the law wasn't in place when it had happened, his ex wasn't culpable.
Then there was the case of the guy in Melbourne, Victoria a few years ago where he sought out guys with the motive of infecting them with the virus. He was eventually found guilty of infecting two persons and attempting to infect 11 others over a 5 year period. Had the rule of disclosure been enforced in Victoria, he might have been caught sooner.
There will be proponents and detractors for everything. With this law, look on the bright side, the state has made the choice of when to disclose their status for them so that they don't have to agonise over "should I tell? should I not?" when getting physically intimate with anyone. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because you're HIV-positive, move onto greener pastures because stupidity can't be cured.
Submitted by B_mystyle on Thu, 2012-08-09 22:10
I don't think the intent behind this law is to persecute anyone, but to prevent the spread of the virus or new infections. Withholding information about your status doesn't do anyone any good. If you're not ready to share your status with anyone then you should not engage in sexual activity. You're obviously not taking your own safety and the safety of others very seriously.
I also urge anyone reading this to assume any potential partners are HIV+ until proven otherwise through regular STD testing. You shouldn't rely on laws like these to keep yourselves safe anyway.
Submitted by Goodguy23 on Fri, 2012-08-24 06:38
Now that was the correct response, a law placed for disclosure isn't going to do anything, each and every person engaging in sexual activities should not expect the partner to tell them to protect themselves, that frankly is their responsibility, if you are going to have sex then protect yourself, if you need your partner at the time to disclose his status in order to protect yourself, then you really need to be educated, I for one would protect myself no matter what, I surely dont need the green light or red light from the partner I'm with to determine my use of protection.
Submitted by cowboyinbrla on Fri, 2012-08-10 17:16
Gravity is still a theory, for that matter. I invite you to walk off the edge of the Grand Canyon, since it's only a "theory" that you will fall.
"Theory," in science, does not mean "a random conjecture that someone created to guess the answer to a question." A theory is, according to the definition used by the National Academy of Sciences, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." No other theory which fits the facts has been advanced and certainly none has been confirmed.
Submitted by Italianguy50 on Wed, 2012-08-08 20:15
Totally agree with you!
Recently met a great guy and after a hot make out session he told me he was positive... That decision should have been mine to make not his, regarding how far I would want to go with someone who is positive.
Submitted by Lean_fox (not verified) on Tue, 2012-08-07 22:53.
Ultimately, all guys need to take responsibility for only engaging in the level of sexual activity they are comfortable with around HIV. That level of activity should recognize that guys don't disclose. However, I think that HIV(+) guys should be bound to disclose. Condoms do break, and though risks are low with HAART, ideally, all involved should be in full possession of HIV status info before having sex.
Submitted by drew50 on Wed, 2012-08-08 04:05
I sometimes can't believe my eyes when I read what other gay people say. Being HIV positive is alread a life sentence and you're alread 'electronically tagged' for the rest of your life...do you really want to add a life sentence in prison to that?
I wrote an article for Positive Lite (Canadian HIV site) which gives more information about how this is handled across the world. America and Canada have returned to the middle ages! Take a look if you're interested.
http://positivelite.com/content/by-author/editorial-authors/dave-r/item/crime-and-punishment-an-international-disclosure-dilemma?category_id=201
Submitted by scott220 (not verified) on Wed, 2012-08-08 09:19.
I didn't see any state that made it a life sentence in prison. In most cases a maximum sentence ranges from a few months to a few years per charge. Like all criminal cases, each one is based on the circumstances and evidence involved. In my state, many of the laws deal with individuals who are prostituting or soliciting for sex after having had a positive test. Keep in mind, these laws are not aimed exclusively at gay men. HIV+ women engaged in prostitution fall under the same laws. It is not unreasonable to have clear consequences to deal with people who knowingly spread infection to someone else. To say that America and Canada have returned to the middle ages is ridiculous. During the middle ages, convicts were tortured, enslaved, and/or killed by violent means.
Submitted by drew50 on Wed, 2012-08-08 10:53
Did you realise that in many states, criminalised HIV+ people are denied their medication while in jail - don't tell me that's not a life sentence - that's a death sentence. If you're being put away for 25 years for taking precautions and not infecting someone - that's a life sentence whichever way you look at it. Each case is not based on the circumstances and evidence involved - it is frequently based on politically driven stigma and not the law itself. You should read the CNN article a little closer. You say 'it is not unreasonable to have clear consequences to deal with people who knowingly spread infection to someone else,'...a) in most cases no one is infected but the charge is using your body as a lethal weapon and b) are you also going to imprison people who pass syphilis, chlamydia, HPV via herpes onto others (mainly heterosexuals) because if not, why not? They're just as guilty of 'knowingly spreading infection to someone else'. It's double standards all round and issuing punishments that are harsher than those for murder or manslaughter - that's returning to the Middle Ages, where people were persecuted for being minorities. You should maybe think a little deeper about what you're wishing on people who are less fortunate than yourself.
Submitted by scott220 (not verified) on Wed, 2012-08-08 16:48.
First, I'm not wishing anything on anyone. Do not make that assertion when I never said anything of the sort. My point is that I agree with the idea that there has to be some sort of legal consequence for irresponsible behavior if someone knowingly spreads a deadly disease. I guess you would be okay with people who are HIV+ going around potentially infecting others and have absolutely no consequence for it whatsoever! Also you said, "if you're being put away for 25 years for taking precautions and not infecting someone - that's a life sentence..." Wouldn't "taking precautions" include informing the other person that you are HIV+? However you look at it, it all comes down to the person who is HIV+ is responsible to tell his/her partner that he/she is infected. It's also the responsibility of everyone else to make sure they know the status of the person they are getting into bed with!! But if the HIV+ person lies and infects someone else, then he/she should be prosecuted and sentences according to the laws in the state. It's not that complicated!
Submitted by drew50 on Thu, 2012-08-09 04:52
Okay, it's pointless having a one-to-one discussion about something so complex on a blog forum, we're just misunderstanding each other from one point to the other, so this is my last comment. You're clearly HIV negative and want to stay that way and I really hope you do and of course you're entitled to your opinions, as am I. Best wishes.
Submitted by scott220 (not verified) on Thu, 2012-08-09 11:39.
It's just debate and I respect your difference of opinion. No ill-will intended whatsoever. We all have different ways of seeing things and it's okay to have back and forth discussion without belittling or hating each other for it. I don't want anything I said to be construed as mean-spirited. I'm not fearful of people who are HIV+. I see things one way and I'm sure there are many people who agree with me. Just like plenty of people see things your way and that's fine. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything! :) Best Wishes to you also.
Submitted by Lean_fox (not verified) on Fri, 2012-08-17 03:30.
I think there should be some consequence for individuals that knowingly infect others with HIV. An HIV positive person who has unsafe sex with another uninfected individual is effectively giving innocent parties life sentences of living with HIV.
Submitted by bigred0818 on Wed, 2012-08-08 04:40
I understand why disclosure is so important to so many people. But where does it stop? When you join a gym, should you have to disclose your sexuality and wear a "gay" hat whilst in the changing rooms so that the heterosexual gym goers know who you are and can avoid being looked at in the showers? However you choose to put it, this is discrimination.
Personally, I would be thankful that someone with HIV has the courage to tell me their status, but if they didn't, and I was unaware of their status, I'm still going to protect myself, because that is the right thing to do, when having anonymous encounters, to protect both (or all, depending on your encounter *wink*) people involved. If I was in a relationship (IF... *sigh*), I would do the same. The truth of the matter is this - NOBODY knows their negative status for sure! A lot can happen in the 3 - 6 months, between tests, and there are a lot of ways HIV can be transmitted that AREN'T sexual. Therefore, each sexual encounter should be as safe as possible anyway!
While HIV+ people should not put their negative partners at risk by performing high risk activities, such as BB, combating and beating this virus is a two way street. Although how one chooses to have sex is a personal preference, if you don't want to catch HIV, it is also YOUR responsibility to take the necessary precautions for YOUR OWN safety. This does NOT... I stress, DOES NOT include passing the responsibility on to HIV+ people by forcing them to disclose! Instead, both parties should just, simply, practice safer sex.
Let's look at the debate from a different angle. Taken from the perspective of a HIV+ person, this activity is just another person that you have to stand in front of and be critically judged by. Think, for a moment, how humiliating this can be. Think of how petrified you were when you decided to tell your loved ones that you were gay. Think of how scared you get when you know that you are telling someone who could react to it violently - A boss, your dad, your brother, your straight sports buddies. Now think of how it would feel having to go through that on a daily basis. How you would tell someone that you like, and that you want to get to know, that you have HIV. Think of how crushing it would be to have to deal with the rejection. How many times could you receive such rejection before it breaks you? Tough deal, huh?
The misconceptions people have about HIV are insane! There are good arguments to both sides. But I think I have to lean towards the support of the guys who have to live with HIV on a daily basis. Being a gay man is tough enough to start with. Let's not make it even worse.
It is EVERYONE'S responsibility to beat this!
Submitted by son4dilf (not verified) on Thu, 2012-08-09 23:06.
Hardly. If every human being was responsible, many laws wouldn't need to exist. Laws are in place to keep errant people in check for the benefit of the entire community. Simple example, driving while under the influence - can we expect everyone to be responsible drivers?
Submitted by Foreplayhours on Wed, 2012-08-08 12:16
Amen ! Well said !!!
Submitted by DagoDaddy on Wed, 2012-08-08 05:24
I think that the ones that should be prosecuted are the scum of the earth guys on sex sites who blatantly lie about their status by posting neg on their profiles when in fact they are POS and there are many that do. I have a friend on MH who works at a local hospital in the pharmacy. He has told me of many guys that are on MH who list themselves as NEG, but come in once a month to his pharmacy to get their hiv drugs.
Submitted by oregondad ... on Wed, 2012-08-08 09:14
The "disclosure" issue is important, but I question the effectiveness of making it a law. What is important to remember is that HIV is only one STD and there are many others. The list includes: papiloma viral warts, salmonella, giardiasis, etc. Men who are compulsive sex-addicts aren't going to practice "full disclosure" when they are on a conquest trip and under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Talk first and then make an intelligent decision.
Submitted by AHotDaddy4U on Wed, 2012-08-08 10:10
love this blog and feel it is essential to educate others about how people with HIV are stigmatized and dream of the day when stigma is a thing of the past! Thank you so much. Keep it going.
Submitted by maxlear on Wed, 2012-08-08 12:57
I hear you all... But HIV is not water or air borne. every HIV+ man/woman has failed to protected himself/herself from catching the disease at some point in their life...
Given the amount of various support from organisations/charities they get, the life prolonging HIV treatment free of charge to them, (not mentioning they don't even pay for the repeated prescription!!! (at least not here in the UK)) ....and all of that because simply of their own failure to protect themselves from catching the disease... I think the least they can give back to the society in return is to be open about their HIV status!
Submitted by canyon84 on Wed, 2012-08-08 15:43
Not freely disclosing is one thing, I do not believe this should be grounds for prosecution, BUT, lying about it is something all together different...and I was involved in a situation where somebody lied to me for months....fortunately our sexual practices minimized risk of transmission of HIV, but suspicion and mistrust were two scars this encounter left behind...disclose up front guys, its the right thing to do...
Submitted by hardtopftl on Wed, 2012-08-08 16:21
there are many more communicable and deadly diseases out there... only HIV is criminalized
Submitted by hardtopftl on Sun, 2012-08-12 12:16
there are many more infectious and/or communicable diseases that can be deadly if untreated -- tuberculosis, malaria, lots of diseases that have largely been eradicated in the developed world, even 2nd hand smoke. why is only HIV is criminalized? my belief is the stigma of HIV as a "gay" disease at a time when in some parts of the country/world it was still illegal to BE gay, the natural conclusion is to make having the disease a crime as well.
Submitted by hardtopftl on Sun, 2012-08-12 12:19
there are many more infectious and/or communicable diseases that can be deadly if untreated -- tuberculosis, malaria, lots of diseases that have largely been eradicated in the developed world, even 2nd hand smoke and shingles (the virus can become airborn and kill fetuses) . why is only HIV is criminalized? my belief is the stigma of HIV as a "gay" disease at a time when in some parts of the country/world it was still illegal to BE gay, the natural conclusion is to make having the disease a crime as well.
Submitted by Kornula on Wed, 2012-08-08 17:25
I find these laws draconian. Yes, people should be up front with their HIV status just before the clothes start flying off. HOWEVER, you should assume someone *might* have it before the clothes start flying off.
Shame on you assholes for wanting big brother over your shoulder at ever turn. You claim to want privacy and freedom, yet you are constantly helping pass invasive laws with disgusting attitudes such as yours.
Submitted by CleveCigarGuy on Wed, 2012-08-08 17:50
The biggest problem I see with the laws are that they encourage people who want to have unsafe sex to NOT get tested. The laws (generally?) only apply when you "know" you're positive - when you were notified of a test result or such. But if you don't get tested and just keep messing around then you can't be prosecuted, even if you infected a ton of other guys in the process. California's version of the law requires an infection to have occurred, Ohio's says if I just know - regardless of what I do - then it's a felony. There's gotta be a better solution somewhere in between that gets guys tested regularly and, more importantly, TREATED to slow the spread. A law that discourages knowing your own status seems really dumb to me.
Submitted by tygur on Wed, 2012-08-08 18:28
There are laws, ignorance of the law is no excuse. You don't like the law change it. But consider, that law may be better thought out than you know. HIV is only a theory. Well, so is gravity, get a clue. Get tested, know your status, tell your partners, duh. The possability a potential trick will reject you because of your HIV-status is on a par with rejection for being uncut. There is no accounting for taste, but there are consequences.
News flash: the only safe sex is the kind you have with your own hand. "Safe sex practices" are about reducing the risk of infection not eliminating it. PERIOD
AIDs is big time scary stuff. Getting the collective panties in a bunch about AIDs discrimination is not productive. It may be too much to ask all gay men to grow up and act reasonably, but pretending to be victimized when you are asked to do so, that is disgusting.
I am all out of patience with men that use the very real bigotry and discrimination we all face as an excuse for behaving badly. Quit trying to be a "man" and start being a grown-up. Any questions?
Submitted by whiskerburn25 on Wed, 2012-08-08 22:15
Yeah, how many positive men have you date? BTW, the you misspelled 'possibility'.
Submitted by tygur on Thu, 2012-08-09 10:22
Oh did that sting? POZ men do their own version of sero-sorting and while I might not like being excluded, I respect their right to choose. Is that not the issue? If I tell a man I'm poz because I believe that is the only way he will go out with me, what is that?
Submitted by whiskerburn25 on Thu, 2012-08-09 19:15
Answer the question; or are you too afraid?
Submitted by tygur on Thu, 2012-08-09 20:29
The status of men I date is none of your bloody business Whiskerburn25. Scanning your comments it seems you are less concerned with the subject of the blog than in venting your venom on HIV- men that sero sort.
I'll go out on a limb here. Maybe it is easier to say men won't have sex with you because of your status. When the reality is they don't like you. I certainly don't.
Submitted by whiskerburn25 on Thu, 2012-08-09 22:24
Thank you for answering my question; I can now consider you a lesser human...
About Age Appropriate
Age Appropriate is an interactive blog for Daddies and the men, hunters, and bears that love them. Covering everything from sex and dating to pop culture and nightlife, Age Appropriate keeps the daddy dialogue open and honest. Think of us as a daily supplement to help keep your hunt as enjoyable, entertaining, and enticing as the catch itself.
Recent Blog Posts
For blog issues, contact us at editor@daddyhunt.com.
Archive
- September 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (23)
- December 2008 (26)
- January 2009 (14)
- February 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- January 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (11)
- August 2010 (15)
- September 2010 (21)
- October 2010 (13)
- November 2010 (16)
- December 2010 (18)
- January 2011 (11)
- February 2011 (10)
- March 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (10)
- June 2011 (19)
- July 2011 (16)
- August 2011 (15)
- September 2011 (13)
- October 2011 (11)
- November 2011 (9)
- December 2011 (11)
- January 2012 (10)
- February 2012 (15)
- March 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (9)
- May 2012 (10)
- June 2012 (10)
- July 2012 (7)
- August 2012 (6)
- September 2012 (7)
- October 2012 (4)
- November 2012 (5)
- December 2012 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (6)
- March 2013 (8)
- April 2013 (13)
- May 2013 (7)
I don't see anything wrong with laws that make it mandatory to disclose your status. People should be telling their partners about their status anyway. What's the big secret? Your partner should be aware of things that can possibly affect them. If they cannot deal with it, there is always someone else that can.