Victims or Not?

[SweetErika]

The basics:
A guy finds out he's HIV-positive.
He meets men online and proceeds to have anonymous sex with them in a local park.
Even when a partner asks if he has HIV or anything else, he says he doesn't.
But at least some of his partners took his word for it, and they may have the virus.

Article here

There was a discussion about whether or not this guy's partners are victims on a local radio show today. That is, should they be viewed as victims of a madman who knowingly exposed many people to HIV, or is it pretty much their own fault for engaging in such risky behavior? Or maybe it's a combination of the two, or something else entirely?

Anyway, as much as we talk about sex here, I thought it was an interesting issue and question. I'm not quite sure what I make of it, but it certainly reinforces some of my fears regarding casual sex and health!

What say you?

 

[KokopelliRises]

I think that yes, they did engage in risky behavior. But who among us has not done something even slightly risky in our lives? Should they have used protection? Yes, they should have. But hindsight doesn't fix anything in the present. If anything, they're victims of a serial liar. If I remember correctly it is illegal to knowingly pass on the HIV virus. It has some stipulation on it, I'm sure, so in that sense I guess they would be victims as well.

 

[Kikori]

I'm with the group that says "it's both their faults." He's making victims out of them by lying about his disease, but they're asking for it by not protecting themselves regardless.

 

[SweetErika]

If anything, they're victims of a serial liar.

But not a potential murderer?

If I remember correctly it is illegal to knowingly pass on the HIV virus. It has some stipulation on it, I'm sure, so in that sense I guess they would be victims as well.

That's right. As the article says, this guy even signed paperwork saying he was aware it was a crime to expose people to HIV without informing them, and others have been brought up on charges for knowingly exposing people.

 

[infinity706]

I'm actually not sure whether I'd consider them victims or not. I can say that this kind of thing could easily become more common, though, since it seems like the majority of those into casual hookups like this don't even carry condoms.

Of course, I've had even more hookups than this guy likely had. Does anyone want to make a guess as to how many of them actually had even one single condom with them?










It's been exactly one out of all of the close to ninety. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised. I've worked in a pharmacy and pregnancy tests easily outsold condoms.

 

[Submission13]

They are victims of a serial killer. They are also potential serial killers if they don't practice safe sex. He is a killer and should be prosecuted if he is infecting others on purpose! It sucks that sex is now potentially deadly!

 

[PertPerth]

I'd call the HIV+ guy a murderer, the same way I'd call someone who speeds or drives under the influence of drugs. He KNOWS he has an illness he can pass onto others which will kill them. Yes, the other guys are stupid for not using a condom. I don't blame (female) rape victoms when they wear short skirts either.

 

[Eilan]

"Knowing my son right now, he pretty much knows that he’s made a big mistake and that will not happen again,” Eldon Roush said.

Understatement, much?

I think the guy's a shitstain who deserves as much jail time as the law allows, but I don't think the "victims" here are blameless. There are people out there who hate condoms so much that they'll look for any excuse not to use them, even if it means trusting a perfect stranger.

I have more to say, but I'm not sure how to say it without offending people.

 

[Firebrain]

I think if you're out having casual sex and you don't use condoms, you're an idiot. Not a victim. People often don't know if they have HIV or STDs, so asking is neither here nor there - but if they are into casual sex, they are far more likely to be carrying them.

 

[bailadora]

I think the guy's a shitstain who deserves as much jail time as the law allows, but I don't think the "victims" here are blameless. There are people out there who hate condoms so much that they'll look for any excuse not to use them, even if it means trusting a perfect stranger.

I've been pondering this statement for a bit now and I think ultimately the people who were infected are victims. Did they act with utter stupidity and risk their health? Should they have used protection? Should they have known better? Absolutely. However, acting like an idiot doesn't mean someone deserves to have someone else knowingly infect them with a deadly disease. I think when you (you in the general sense, not you personally) try to proportion the blame, you wind up on a slippery slope. Kind of like Pert's example of the girl that walks around wearing provocative clothing. Expand the scenario a bit and say she's walking by herself at 2 am on a fairly deserted street when she's accosted and raped. Was she engaging in risky behavior? Absolutely. And while many would agree she was foolhardy in her actions (as in "What the hell was she thinking?"), it doesn't excuse the actions of the perpetrator and I don't think there would be doubt in anyone's mind that she was indeed the victim of a crime.

 

[infinity706]

I think if you're out having casual sex and you don't use condoms, you're an idiot. Not a victim. People often don't know if they have HIV or STDs, so asking is neither here nor there - but if they are into casual sex, they are far more likely to be carrying them.

Unfortunately, that's not true from my experience as well as everything I've read. Most people into casual sex don't use condoms. I've even had literally 10 times as many walk out on me because I insisted on using them than the ones that carried them.

 

[Firebrain]

Unfortunately, that's not true from my experience as well as everything I've read. Most people into casual sex don't use condoms. I've even had literally 10 times as many walk out on me because I insisted on using them than the ones that carried them.

I meant carrying STDs, not condoms. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Eilan]

I've been pondering this statement for a bit now and I think ultimately the people who were infected are victims. Did they act with utter stupidity and risk their health? Should they have used protection? Should they have known better? Absolutely. However, acting like an idiot doesn't mean someone deserves to have someone else knowingly infect them with a deadly disease. I think when you (you in the general sense, not you personally) try to proportion the blame, you wind up on a slippery slope. Kind of like Pert's example of the girl that walks around wearing provocative clothing. Expand the scenario a bit and say she's walking by herself at 2 am on a fairly deserted street when she's accosted and raped. Was she engaging in risky behavior? Absolutely. And while many would agree she was foolhardy in her actions (as in "What the hell was she thinking?"), it doesn't excuse the actions of the perpetrator and I don't think there would be doubt in anyone's mind that she was indeed the victim of a crime.

Oh, I absolutely don't think the victims in either scenario "deserve" what happened to them. I'm a bit stuck on the issue of consent, though.

To be honest, the people I have the most sympathy for are the unsuspecting SO's of the men the HIV+ guy was fucking.

 

[Firebrain]

I've been pondering this statement for a bit now and I think ultimately the people who were infected are victims. Did they act with utter stupidity and risk their health? Should they have used protection? Should they have known better? Absolutely. However, acting like an idiot doesn't mean someone deserves to have someone else knowingly infect them with a deadly disease. I think when you (you in the general sense, not you personally) try to proportion the blame, you wind up on a slippery slope. Kind of like Pert's example of the girl that walks around wearing provocative clothing. Expand the scenario a bit and say she's walking by herself at 2 am on a fairly deserted street when she's accosted and raped. Was she engaging in risky behavior? Absolutely. And while many would agree she was foolhardy in her actions (as in "What the hell was she thinking?"), it doesn't excuse the actions of the perpetrator and I don't think there would be doubt in anyone's mind that she was indeed the victim of a crime.

The rape analogy doesn't carry at all though. We are talking about people who consented to unsafe sex, fully aware of the risks. When you do so, you accept responsiblity for the outcome - nomatter whether people tell you they are HIV positive or not. People who are raped don't choose to be and therefore cannot accept responsibility just because they wear provocative clothes or are out late. None of those things actually say "well, it's ok to rape me!" There's no consent anywhere.

 

[shiny5437]

Two guys meet in a chat room

Decide to make their lives more interesting by playing russian roulette in the park.

Guy #1 brings the gun. Guy #2 asks guy #1 him how many bullets are in the gun. He says there are no bullets, but has in fact put in, lets say 3 bullets.

So in the park they roll the chamber and both hold it to guy #2's head and pull the trigger...

Now, lets assume guy #2 is a rational adult who knows 1) sometimes people lie, and 2) having a stranger put a gun to your head constitutes a risk.

So guy #2 knows 100% that he is taking a risk.

However, guy #1 knowing that there are 3/6 chambers full knows that guy #2 is only taking a 50% risk.

So who's at fault now?

(Logic certainly at fault here somewhere )

I can't find the figures for anal sex but a quick wikipedia shows that the hetero HIV transmission risk is less than 1% per encounter.

 

[SweetErika]

To be honest, the people I have the most sympathy for are the unsuspecting SO's of the men the HIV+ guy was fucking.

Ain't that the truth!

Let's hope these guys are getting tested and don't do the same thing to their significant others if they're positive.

The rape analogy doesn't carry at all though. We are talking about people who consented to unsafe sex, fully aware of the risks. When you do so, you accept responsiblity for the outcome - nomatter whether people tell you they are HIV positive or not. People who are raped don't choose to be and therefore cannot accept responsibility just because they wear provocative clothes or are out late. None of those things actually say "well, it's ok to rape me!" There's no consent anywhere.

I agree. Just about everyone knows sexual contact could lead to acquiring an STI and other consequences. By consenting to sex, we consent to being exposed to those consequences.

One can't consent to assault, sexual or otherwise, however.

 

[SweetErika]

I can't find the figures for anal sex but a quick wikipedia shows that the hetero HIV transmission risk is less than 1% per encounter.

Anal sex has a much higher transmission rate than vaginal sex. Receiving anal sex is riskier than giving it.

To me, the overall transmission rate stats are pretty meaningless because there isn't enough info and there are too many variables (e.g. viral load, time since infection, type of sex, the exposed person's immune system). The only thing we know for sure is that every person who gets HIV gets it from a single encounter.

 

[bailadora]

It's interesting that when people talk about using protection, they are usually referring only to condoms. What about oral sex or rimming? Why isn't there advocacy for carrying dental dams as well? I know some will say the chances of getting HIV through oral is so much less than other forms of sex, but FFS - why risk it?

 

[bailadora]

Let's hope these guys are getting tested and don't do the same thing to their significant others if they're positive.

Agreed.

I agree. Just about everyone knows sexual contact could lead to acquiring an STI and other consequences. By consenting to sex, we consent to being exposed to those consequences.

One can't consent to assault, sexual or otherwise, however.

I agree with everyone that the people on the receiving end of this guy acted like utter morons but the stumbling block for me is that Rouch knowingly put other people in danger. I just don't buy the fact that because they consented to unprotected sex that means they consented to being infected. Yes, I know it's common knowledge that STDs are an inherent risk of unprotected sex, but there's inherent risks in many of the actions we undertake in our daily lives. To me - the distinction is the prior knowledge of the infected person. And that's probably still as clear as mud. I know what I want to say, but I'm having trouble articulating it.

 

[silverwhisper]

i think that they're nominally victims, yes. this is the risk in casual, unprotected sex (bailadora's point re: other activities aside). and i think that shiny's re-statement is certainly relevant.

ed

 

[SweetErika]

I agree with everyone that the people on the receiving end of this guy acted like utter morons but the stumbling block for me is that Rouch knowingly put other people in danger. I just don't buy the fact that because they consented to unprotected sex that means they consented to being infected. Yes, I know it's common knowledge that STDs are an inherent risk of unprotected sex, but there's inherent risks in many of the actions we undertake in our daily lives. To me - the distinction is the prior knowledge of the infected person. And that's probably still as clear as mud. I know what I want to say, but I'm having trouble articulating it.

Maybe they didn't consent to being infected, but I think they certainly consented to the possibility of it by engaging in the behavior that they knew was risky.

For instance, if I go stand in the middle of a busy street or walk across the freeway, I'm not consenting to being hit by a car, but because I'm aware of the risks and accepting them by going into the street, I would be consenting to the possibility of being injured or killed by a car.

 

[MissChevious]

Maybe they didn't consent to being infected, but I think they certainly consented to the possibility of it by engaging in the behavior that they knew was risky.

For instance, if I go stand in the middle of a busy street or walk across the freeway, I'm not consenting to being hit by a car, but because I'm aware of the risks and accepting them by going into the street, I would be consenting to the possibility of being injured or killed by a car.

Yes of course they are victims. Stupid people but victims none the less. Apply this scenario to meeting someone in a park to have anonymous sex, changing your mind and saying nah and then getting raped. Is the person who got raped a victim? Hell yeah!

Sorry but I respectfully disagree.

 

[SweetErika]

Yes of course they are victims. Stupid people but victims none the less. Apply this scenario to meeting someone in a park to have anonymous sex and then getting raped. Is the person who got raped a victim? Hell yeah!

Sorry but I respectfully disagree.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. We're talking about people going into a park to have anonymous sex, then having anonymous sex. Rape doesn't enter into the equation, nor is it logical to equate the exposure to HIV to rape because these guys consented to being exposed when they had sex.

If I go hook up with Random Guy X tonight, I'd be consenting to being exposed to whatever RGX may have, including sperm that could get me pregnant. If I ask him if he's clean and/or sterile, and he lies and says he is, I'd certainly be a victim of his lying, but would I be a victim in other ways? Don't reasonable people factor ignorance and lying into the equation when they have sex?

 

[mentionME]

I believe they are victims. Our social contract would say knowingly having sex with a harmful disease is wrong. so i see his actions as malicious and anyone who has been affected as a victim despite proper precaution that could have been taken

 

[MissChevious]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. We're talking about people going into a park to have anonymous sex, then having anonymous sex. Rape doesn't enter into the equation, nor is it logical to equate the exposure to HIV to rape because these guys consented to being exposed when they had sex.

If I go hook up with Random Guy X tonight, I'd be consenting to being exposed to whatever RGX may have, including sperm that could get me pregnant. If I ask him if he's clean and/or sterile, and he lies and says he is, I'd certainly be a victim of his lying, but would I be a victim in other ways? Don't reasonable people factor ignorance and lying into the equation when they have sex?

Yes, bad example but I still disagree

I think we need to define the word “victim”

–noun
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.

2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.

3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.

4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/victim

Option 2 I think defines the persons in the scenario you are describing as victims don’t you think?

You are assuming that anyone who has anonymous unprotected sex are a. reasonable and b. would factor ignorance and lying into the equation when they have sex.

Neither are absolute truths.