How College Wrestling Star “Tiger Mandingo” Became An HIV Scapegoat

[TruthBTold]

"I believe that my responsibility for myself is always far greater than my partner's responsibility for myself, no matter what my sex partner knows. I'm fully accountable if I choose to bareback. His accountability to me is unchanged, and far less than my own accountability, whether he knows, believes, suspects, doubts, or has no idea of his HIV positive status."

 

Agree 100% with this contention. A person should just assume that there is always a chance that you can be infected with AIDS no matter what the partner may or may not know. This young mans incarceration is a tremendous waste of judicial and prosecutorial resources. While locking up someone with AIDS may assuage our knowledge that our society does little to educate people about how AIDS is spread or our failure to put resources into organizations or products that make the spread less likely, it doesn't do much to fight the disease. We simply lock up one person. If we think that locking someone up is going to stop others from doing what he did we are kidding ourselves. His potential incarceration has the likelihood of stopping others from his type of "crime" than the times that people are told that others have been prosecuted for illegally downloading porn.

[Steven_Draker]

... our society does little to educate people about how AIDS is spread or our failure to put resources into organizations or products that make the spread less likely, it doesn't do much to fight the disease.

 

In 2013 the U.S. government spent almost 1 billion on HIV prevention. That's most than ANY other country in the developed world.

 

To say that our/your society does little is an understatement.

 

Each year, the U.S. government spends billions of dollars to help people in the United States and countries around the world who are living with HIV/AIDS.

By law, Federal programs must provide information on how they spend the funds they receive. Transparency in government promotes accountability and provides meaningful access to information so that citizens can know what their government is doing and how Federal dollars are being spent.

 

FEDERAL DOMESTIC HIV/AIDS PROGRAMS & RESEARCH SPENDING

 

(FY 2011-2014)

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation – U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: The President’s FY 2014 Budget Request.

Program/Account

(USD $ Millions) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2014

(President’s Request)

 

Ryan White Program 2,3 $2,336.7 $2,392.2 $2,412.2

ADAP (non-add)4 $885.0 $933.3 $943.3

CDC Domestic Prevention (& Research)5 $800.4 $822.6 $836.1

National Institutes of Health (domestic only)6 $2,683.5 $2,681.6 $2,722.6

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Admin (SAMHSA) $178.1 $177.4 $178.1

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) $852.0 $956.0 $1,111.0

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) $334.3 $332.0 $332.0

Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative (non-add) $419.9 $426.2 Not available yet

Other domestic discretionary7 $316.9 $313.4 $297.0

Subtotal discretionary $7,502.0 $7,675.3 $7,888.9

 

Medicaid $5,100.0 $5,300.0 $5,900.0

Medicare $5,400.0 $5,800.0 $6,600.0

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) $1,806.0 $1,894.0 $2,040.0

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) $590.0 $535.0 $605.0

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Plan $150.0 $161.0 $178.0

CDC Prevention and Public Health Fund $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Subtotal mandatory $13046.0 $13690.0 $15,323.0

Subtotal domestic $20,548.0 $21,365.3 $23,211.9

 

source: http://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/funding-opportunities/how-were-spending/

 

 

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/us-federal-funding-for-hivaids-by-category-fy2013-january2014.png?w=735&h=551&crop=1

 

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/us-federal-funding-for-hivaids-fy2009-fy2014-january2014.png?w=735&h=551&crop=1

[Nvr2Thick]

Is it "negligent" when the victim says? [/color]

 

"I had asked him several times, and he’d said he was clean, and I trusted him!"

 

 

I think you're looking at criminal transmission of HIV from a specific and unique point of view: the one of a promiscuous gay man who has a myriad of unprotected sexual encounters with random men.

 

In our multi-dimensional and diverse World there are many different cases and scenarios if you take the care to check the link below:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV#Legal_events_in_connection_with_criminal-transmission_events

 

I may not agree with certain aspects of the law, however I know that I have to RESPECT it.

 

I may have to obey the law but I don't have to respect it. These types of laws don't earn my respect. They create an unbalanced expectation of responsibility.

 

If a victim says ""I had asked him several times, and he’d said he was clean, and I trusted him!" he is in most situations absolutely negligent if he depends on that trust to protect him during unprotected sex. I believe that the circumstances under which sexual partners should have that level of trust are specific and unique.

 

Yes, the context of the article you posted is promiscuous gay men who have a myriad of unprotected sexual encounters with random men. It seems to me that you have supported the idea and provided data to back up how common the behavior is.

[TruthBTold]

"In 2013 the U.S. government spent almost 1 billion on HIV prevention. That's most than ANY other country in the developed world.

 

To say that our/your society does little is an understatement.

 

Each year, the U.S. government spends billions of dollars to help people in the United States and countries around the world who are living with HIV/AIDS.

 

By law, Federal programs must provide information on how they spend the funds they receive. Transparency in government promotes accountability and provides meaningful access to information so that citizens can know what their government is doing and how Federal dollars are being spent."

 

I stated that our society "does little to educate people about how AIDS is spread or our failure to put resources into organizations or products that make the spread less likely." Even the cited statistics show that not even $1 billion is spent for prevention of the disease or .09%. And I do applaud the government for the out lay it is currently making for its after-the-fact care and treatment of AIDS patients. However, I also have to recognize that the present defense department budget is currently near $500 billion. Because we seem to face no imminent military attack from Canada or Mexico our society could certainly afford more than $1 billion for AIDS education and prevention.

[+ Gar1eth]

I agree with the no barebacking and people needing to be responsible for their own health. But, if someone with normal intellectual function, knows they are positive, and deliberately lies to people then there should be consequences

 

Gman

 

What if he was last tested negative in mid-May but he was the star bottom in a bareback cumdump gangbang in Haiti the next day, and that's been his only sexual encounter for the year? Today, he's about to fuck me without a condom. What is he obligated to tell me?

 

I think he should be honest enough to say- I was negative at my last test x months ago, but yesterday I was in Haiti where I was the star bottom in a bareback cumdump gangbang.

 

Luckily for the bottom, if he wasn't told, I doubt that HIV would be able to cause the top to be infectious within 24 hours of exposure.

 

Gman

[Nvr2Thick]

I think he should be honest enough to say- I was negative at my last test x months ago, but yesterday I was in Haiti where I was the star bottom in a bareback cumdump gangbang.

 

Luckily for the bottom, if he wasn't told, I doubt that HIV would be able to cause the top to be infectious within 24 hours of exposure.

 

Gman

 

You're not paying attention. In my scenario he was last tested negative in May, and last fucked in May. It's July now, well more than 24 hours later. You had stated that if a guy know's he's positive there should be consequences. In the scenario I'm about to let him fuck me raw. If he had tested positive you're suggesting that he's in someway accountable if he doesn't disclose his status and he infects me. But he doesn't know whether he's positive, so he can't be accountable -- unless you're suggesting that he's accountable for infecting me if he hasn't disclosed his high-risk behavior in spite of his last negative test. What if this guy was infected, after a negative test, by a semi-monogamous parter that he thought was negative and thought was playing safe outside the relationship? Now my HIV positive sex partner is at risk because he's had sex since his last test -- he just doesn't know he's HIV positive or know he's at risk because he trusts his partner. If he's guilty of failing to disclose when he knows he is HIV positive, shouldn't he be guilty of failing to disclose when he's at risk -- for all possibilities of risk?

 

To me the article was best summed up here:

 

_______________

Next, Johnson’s partners: As one community HIV advocate put it, “It really burned me that the statements said that Michael didn’t use condoms… NEITHER DID THE OTHER GUYS!”

 

Johnson’s lawyer declined to say whether he’d informed his partners he has HIV and rubbered up, but even if he didn’t, why is Johnson alone to blame for having mutually consensual bareback sex?

 

“Our public health laws are often framed around the idea of a ‘well’ person being protected from those dangerous ‘sick’ people, rather than the desire to improve societal health for everyone,” wrote Sean Strub, executive director of the Sero Project.

 

Or, as Kyle Hanten, a bar manager at the St. Louis bar Rehab, put it more directly, “If you hook up with someone and you both choose to have unprotected sex, whatever happens is on both of you.”

____________________

[+ purplekow]

One of Tiger's partners is described as having many partners and frequent unprotected sexual encounters. This partner states that Tiger said he was "clean". These are adults. They are engaging in adult behavior. Multiple bareback sexual partners and an ambiguous "I'm clean" as assurance is not responsible adult behavior and the partner bears that responsiblity as does Tiger. In addition, if a gay man with that body wants to bareback with you, you would be foolish to think that you are that special that he wants to bareback with you and only you. A person blithely placing himself in a dangerous situation should not be surprised by a bad outcome. If one does often enough, with enough different people, a bad out should be expected.

One wonders, how many other people the initial "victim" exposed after willingly having unprotected sex with Tiger.

[Steven_Draker]

Instead of asking "Are you clean?" ask "When were you last tested for HIV?" and pay close attention to the reply.

 

You'll be surprised at the responses you'll get.

[+ Gar1eth]

The point is in this case that he knew he was positive, and he lied about it. In other cases, you should be honest enough to say I was negative at my last test, but I've done unsafe things since then. None of which excuses the bottom for acting like an idiot. But in the same way that if you chose to drive drunk and are in an accident, penalties should be steeper for deliberately lying about your status or lying about the type of sex you engage in after a negative test. If you honestly don't know that you're positive, that's a horse of a different color.

 

Gman

[+ purplekow]

If he had unprotected sex and his partner did not become positive would he still be in jail?

If he had unprotected sex and his partner was already positive would he still be in jail?

It is the transmission of the disease that is the crime and both were responsible for that, though the behavior of the first victim, he may have been positive and not have known it. Is that reasonable doubt?

That might possibly be the case of each of the persons who with whom he had sex.

His contention is that he told them he was positive and they wanted to have sex with him anyway.

So if they willing had sex and the person became positive, is Tiger still guilty of a crime.

if it is the transmission of the disease then yes, but if it is deceiving someone and placing him at risk, then no.

In any case, eightteen months in jail awaiting trial seems excessive. What ever happened to a fair and speedy trial?

[Nvr2Thick]

If he had unprotected sex and his partner did not become positive would he still be in jail?

If he had unprotected sex and his partner was already positive would he still be in jail?

It is the transmission of the disease that is the crime and both were responsible for that, though the behavior of the first victim, he may have been positive and not have known it. Is that reasonable doubt?

That might possibly be the case of each of the persons who with whom he had sex.

His contention is that he told them he was positive and they wanted to have sex with him anyway.

So if they willing had sex and the person became positive, is Tiger still guilty of a crime.

if it is the transmission of the disease then yes, but if it is deceiving someone and placing him at risk, then no.

In any case, eightteen months in jail awaiting trial seems excessive. What ever happened to a fair and speedy trial?

 

All interesting points. If a bug chaser sought out raw sex from an HIV positive man by claiming that he was already HIV positive himself, would he be guilty of similar deception?

 

What if I picked up a different top on A4A each night this week for bareback sex? All have HIV Status: "Don't Know" in their profiles. If I'm diagnosed with HIV after this binge should the police get involved? One of them might have known he was HIV positive, and if he had said so I might have taken precautions. Under these laws many HIV infections are potential felonies. Many infected persons, however, wouldn't stop to wonder whether the infection came from a knowing partner -- probably because they've acknowledged their own risky practices.

 

One of the main points of this article is about how a situation with college kids engaging in careless sex hookups has been characterized as a predatory, diseased black man preying on a university. This behavior is happening with gay men all over the world. Men are engaged in casual sex exercising poor judgment regarding their partners. Take the race and the university influence out of this case and the law would be less likely to care.

[Steven_Draker]

Take the race and the university influence out of this case and the law would be less likely to care.

 

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37599712.jpg

[+ Gar1eth]

While again the bottom is not blameless- it's both the dangers of transmission of the virus and the potential for transmission.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/nyregion/judge-upholds-policy-barring-unvaccinated-students-during-illnesses.html

 

Gman