139 replies to this topic

[Cait]

Bad Wolf, on Dec 30 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

The three women did not choose to have unsafe sex with an HIV infected person.   A person ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean, not going around trying to spread deadly viruses.

Lil

And in a perfect world everyone would be able to reasonably expect that someone was not infected if they said so.  But we don't live in a perfect world, and because we don't live in a perfect world anyone who has unprotected sex is putting their life at risk.  That might not be fair, but it is reality.  Anyone who doesn't protect their own life against that reality is accepting that risk.

None of what I just said negates the criminality of anyone who knowingly passes along a disease.  But let's face it, by not using protection women facilitate their own victimization.  And please let's not get side tracked in saying I'm blaming the women.  I'm not.  They didn't consent to having sex with an infected man.  I'm not blaming the victim.  But I'm also not allowing women to be less that powerful when it comes to their own sex lives and their own safety.  Condoms empower women.  They chose to play Russian Roulette.  

What I am saying is that in a perfect world a woman ought to be able to walk down the street, at midnight, in South Central LA, butt naked and not be raped--but the reality is something entirely different.  If you walk down the street naked at midnight in South Central something bad is going to happen to you.  You are expanding the risk ratio to the point where you are going to lose.  Sex without a condom does exactly the same thing.  The risk ratio becomes life threatening.  That's just reality.

Additionally I'd like to make a comment about the 'who is to blame' thing here in this thread.  I think it's being missed, but Scott is not talking about blaming the women for what someone else did to them.  He is saying they could have prevented the damage if they had been responsible.  That's a different issue entirely.  Many here seem to think that statement is relieving the man of his responsibility.  It doesn't.  It isn't an all or nothing proposition.  If you say the women contributed to the risk, it doesn't lessen what the man did by being pos and infecting them.  There are two distinct areas of responsibility here.  He is responsible for what he did, and they are responsible for what they didn't do in this case.  That doesn't impact his crime, [although I'm sure a defense attorney would argue that it does] it only means that women are responsible for their own health.  But that doesn't make it OK for HIV men to go around infecting women.  There are two areas of responsibility here--not one or the other.

As to the 'heat of the moment' and how difficult it is to get a man to wear a condom.. If you don't get that glove on him, you are walking down the street, butt naked, at midnight in South Central.  Good Luck.  Your life depends on being safe.  You don't want to take care of your own life, then bad things can happen.  Just understand that you are living with a greater risk of infection.  A risk that is unacceptable to most of us, so we learned how to put a condom into play.  Truthfully if every women would insist on it, men would never think about not having sex without one because their pleasure would depend on it. I'm just sayin'.

[Cait]

scherzo, on Dec 31 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

[ I have a reasonable expectation that young women who are permanently damaged by a lying disease spreading creep...won't get a sanctimonious lecture on how they share responsibility for their own victimization. I also have a reasonable expectation that people will discern the difference, between poor judgment, and an act of premeditated evil.

But as we can see, in the "real world" human beings fall short of reasonable expectations all the time. This doesn't mean the expectation that a man will be honest about a life threatening communicable disease, is suddenly "unreasonable". We shouldn't lower the morality bar for this HIV spreading slimeball and guys like him.  

-scherzo

You state this as if things were all equal.  They aren't of course.  The man is a criminal.  He knowingly and willfully infected women.  That is a crime. However you can't possibly be saying that women aren't responsible for their own sexual conduct.   Because they most certainly are.

The question becomes; was the lack of judgment on the women's part equal to the crime of the man who willfully infected them.  Of course not.  One is a crime, the other is a lack of judgment.  The crime however, does not negate the lack of judgment nor the responsibility all women have for the decisions they make concerning how they have sex and under what conditions. [and of course the responsibility for sexual behavior does not absolve the crime either.]

So let's not pretend that women aren't responsible for what they do.  That's just insulting to women in general.  We most certainly are responsible.  It's just not a crime to be stupid.  But it's still stupid to have risky sex.

[scherzo]

Quote

Additionally I'd like to make a comment about the 'who is to blame' thing here in this thread. I think it's being missed, but Scott is not talking about blaming the women for what someone else did to them. He is saying they could have prevented the damage if they had been responsible. That's a different issue entirely. Many here seem to think that statement is relieving the man of his responsibility. It doesn't.

Relieving the man of his responsibility was ENTIRELY Scott's point.(at least legally speaking) He didn't post to ruminate on the hazards and pitfalls of 21st century human sexuality. He's arguing that the womens consent absolves HIV guy from any legal repercussion whatsoever. Once again...here's what the "bottom line" is in the world according to EVill:

"...the bottom line is that every single one of those women is responsible for her own seroconversion, and this man should not be treated by the law as though he was a rapist or a child molester."

You say the women's poor judgment doesn't impact his crime, but you're trying to pass off your argument for his, when I doubt you'd even agree with Scott on the genuine magnitude of what a diagnosis of HIV will mean for these victims. My theory is, if G had made the same arguments, we'd have never made it to page 2 without charges of "misogyny" being thrown around. Just a theory..can't prove nuthin' o'course.     

-scherzo

[scherzo]

Quote

You state this as if things were all equal. They aren't of course. The man is a criminal. He knowingly and willfully infected women. That is a crime. However you can't possibly be saying that women aren't responsible for their own sexual conduct. Because they most certainly are.

I'm saying it's not the least bit relevant if we're discussing the level of criminality of their assailant. I also think that harping on their "mistake", is distasteful in the context it was originally introduced by Scott. I'm not prepared to tar and feather a young woman for the almost unavoidable misstep of trusting the wrong guy on a given day. These girls are already paying an unusually high price for their error.

-scherzo

[Cait]

  No you can't prove it, and since it didn't happen that way, we'll never know.  But I'm sure that won't stop your speculations about the victimization of G -- real and imagined.

[Cait]

scherzo, on Dec 31 2007, 02:35 AM, said:

Quote

You state this as if things were all equal. They aren't of course. The man is a criminal. He knowingly and willfully infected women. That is a crime. However you can't possibly be saying that women aren't responsible for their own sexual conduct. Because they most certainly are.

I'm saying it's not the least bit relevant if we're discussing the level of criminality of their assailant. I also think that harping on their "mistake", is distasteful in the context it was originally introduced by Scott. I'm not prepared to tar and feather a young woman for the almost unavoidable misstep of trusting the wrong guy on a given day. These girls are already paying an unusually high price for their error.

-scherzo

You know if it were anything else I might agree with you.  I really would.  But in this case, I'm sorry, harping on the choices of women *IS* the answer to stopping the spread of AIDS.  The criminal case of this man won't amount to a hill of beans as far as the spread of AIDS goes.  Oh sure, it will be good to get him off the streets, or into a woodchipper, and we'll all feel good about justice in this country, but it won't help women at all.  But the answer for women is to act responsibly.  We are healthier and more powerful when we are in charge of our own health and choices.  Choosing to sue a condom or other safe sex practice is empowering and life extending for women.  Anything less is enabling.

Women have to be empowered to take care of their own sexual conduct.  I think you are sincere when you say you're not going to "tar and feather a young woman for the almost unavoidable misstep of trusting the wrong guy on a given day", but that attitude won't save lives, and it is an attitude that might kill women.

This isn't about blaming women for mis-steps, it's about making them aware and responsible.  Every time someone takes a less than ruthless attitude about safe sex practices, it is sealing the fate of another woman.   This isn't the time to be soft and PC about the choices of women.  I don't want to tar and feather them either, and I certainly want them to remain safe and disease free.  To do that, I'm pretty much going to take the position that ALL women are responsible for their sexual activities.  Their choices impact their lives.  That's not tar and feathering them, that's expecting them to act like women who understand the dangers of our world and will act accordingly.  It might sound like a bit of "tough-love" but there isn't any room to wiggle because the consequences are so dire.

[EChatty]

Thank you, Cait!

[Balderdash]

Quote

Scherzo typed:
Relieving the man of his responsibility was ENTIRELY Scott's point.(at least legally speaking) He didn't post to ruminate on the hazards and pitfalls of 21st century human sexuality. He's arguing that the womens consent absolves HIV guy from any legal repercussion whatsoever. Once again...here's what the "bottom line" is in the world according to EVill:

"...the bottom line is that every single one of those women is responsible for her own seroconversion, and this man should not be treated by the law as though he was a rapist or a child molester."

You say the women's poor judgment doesn't impact his crime, but you're trying to pass off your argument for his, when I doubt you'd even agree with Scott on the genuine magnitude of what a diagnosis of HIV will mean for these victims. My theory is, if G had made the same arguments, we'd have never made it to page 2 without charges of "misogyny" being thrown around. Just a theory..can't prove nuthin' o'course.   

-scherzo

I'm going to repost Scotts Mea Culpa again for Scherzo and G's edification so that they can give that dead horse some peace.  

See, in the beginning Scott posted without having all the knowledge he needed to make an informed comment.  Now that he knows the full extent of HIV+ guys truly disgusting behavior he's not defending him anymore.  But he still says that the women involved should have insisted on a condom and in this day and age if you don't insist on a condom then you're just asking for trouble.  I feel really bad for those women, that's a pretty harsh way to have to learn a lesson.  Having said that, I think the guy should be locked up for assault at the very least.

ScottEVill, on Dec 23 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

Bad Wolf, on Dec 22 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

I think people are making this about his disease when it's about his reckless conduct *in light of* his disease.

The second article makes it clear that I was totally wrong about him, so--again--I'm done defending him.  I also want to make it clear that I do agree HIV+ people should disclose their status, always, even if condoms are used, even if it's a casual hook-up.  

That said, I still think this is a rotten law that does nothing to help public health -- and may actually hurt by saying, "if your partner is Poz, he has to tell you on pain of a potential lie sentence."  Of course, that leads logically, and inevitably, to the thought, "if he hasn't told me, he must not be Poz.  And if he's not Poz, then we don't need condoms."  

That's how most HIV infections happen. Through crazy assumptions like that leading people to consent to unsafe sex.  Instead of making laws that punish HIV+ people for failing to disclose, I think we should recognize that it's everyone's own, personal responsibility to protect themselves.  If everyone did so, HIV infections would plummet.

[Bad Wolf]

It is far more invasive (not to mention entirely untenable from a practical standpoint) to make laws that say "thou shalt only have safe sex"  than it is to take a relatively narrow situation, like one where someone knows they are positive and say "thou shalt not lie to someone about your status in order to induce them into having unsafe sex".   Now if someone starts talking laws like "registering" when you're positive, I'll be all over it like flies on rice because that's just horrible.  But I don't think that's what this case is about.  It's about a guy who knew he was positive and claimed to be negative for the express purpose of getting someone else sick.

Also I don't disagree that anyone who engages in unsafe sex is not being smart.  It just doesn't affect my view of this person's culpability.  And I don't need to be some narrow minded person who can't think outside a court room to actually have that opinion.

Lil

[G1223]

Cait, on Dec 31 2007, 05:43 AM, said:

  No you can't prove it, and since it didn't happen that way, we'll never know.  But I'm sure that won't stop your speculations about the victimization of G -- real and imagined.

No but we can see you want to avoid taking responsibility for excusing Scott's own words. They were quoted for you. It was very much "These women were to blame and the guy should not be blamed"

But go on in your avoidance of what was said.

But we both know Scherzo was right. If I had said those things I would have you guys on me like white on rice. It just matter who says the comments I guess.

[Rhea]

Nikcara, on Dec 30 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

So with all this misinformation out there, plus simple lack of experiance, makes them easy victims.  I know when I was younger my creepy-guy senses were not well developed.

And that's a really valid point. I doubt many young women know what they should about creepy guys - For most, good judgement is usually learned the hard way - and somewhere along the way some nice young man turns out to be a creep.

But regardless of whether or not they're stupid enought to fall into bed with a creep, they should still practice safe sex.

Edited by Rhea, 31 December 2007 - 10:22 AM.

[Rhea]

Just an addendum:

This guy didn't just "forget" to have safe sex one or twice - HE WAS WITH FIFTEEN DIFFERENT WOMEN AND HE INFECTED FIVE. That's not a little bit of malice aforethought - it's a lot. And I'm sure the five he infected are just thrilled to have a gift that keeps on giving. He must have a lot of something or other to sleep with that many women anyway.

Rotting in jail sounds pretty good to me.

Edited by Rhea, 31 December 2007 - 10:26 AM.

[EChatty]

G-how many times are you going to have to be told that Scott STOPPED defending the guy when he found out that he actually did go out and lie about his HIV+ status?

All he's doing now is saying that the women still held a responsibility to protect themselves from STDs, and that by-KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY-engaging in unsafe sex, that they were partly to blame for their condition now-not entirely, not mostly, not half, but-in some small way.

[Cait]

G1223, on Dec 31 2007, 07:13 AM, said:

Cait, on Dec 31 2007, 05:43 AM, said:

  No you can't prove it, and since it didn't happen that way, we'll never know.  But I'm sure that won't stop your speculations about the victimization of G -- real and imagined.

No but we can see you want to avoid taking responsibility for excusing Scott's own words. They were quoted for you. It was very much "These women were to blame and the guy should not be blamed"

WTF???  I don't have to make an apology for what I said or what Scott said, be did that himself BEFORE I ever entered this thread.  You should try reading all of a person's posts for clarity G it would help.  

Here are his comments as a reminder:

Scott said:

The second article makes it clear that I was totally wrong about him, so--again--I'm done defending him. I also want to make it clear that I do agree HIV+ people should disclose their status, always, even if condoms are used, even if it's a casual hook-up.

That said, I still think this is a rotten law that does nothing to help public health -- and may actually hurt by saying, "if your partner is Poz, he has to tell you on pain of a potential lie sentence." Of course, that leads logically, and inevitably, to the thought, "if he hasn't told me, he must not be Poz. And if he's not Poz, then we don't need condoms."

That's how most HIV infections happen. Through crazy assumptions like that leading people to consent to unsafe sex. Instead of making laws that punish HIV+ people for failing to disclose, I think we should recognize that it's everyone's own, personal responsibility to protect themselves. If everyone did so, HIV infections would plummet.

Quote

But go on in your avoidance of what was said.

Since you are a person who has never apologized or taken a step back once you have more information, I consider your opinion on my avoidance pretty much irrelevant.  I'll admit this, I thought Scott held the opinion he now holds, earlier in the thread.  Maybe I read him before he explained in detail how he felt about the guy, and I didn't come back to the thread until I posted.  And I came back because of scherzo's post in the AQG thread.  Anyway, I could have sworn he had said earlier what he says now.  

In any event, when I arrived in this thread, he had already read the additional material and admitted he was wrong.  What about that is avoidance on MY part?  He now says that the man is responsible for his actions and the women are responsible for theirs.  In case you missed it, that is what *I* said.  Maybe I'm psychic and knew what Scott was going to say in the end.  LOL, in any event, I don't have to avoid anything because all is right now.  

Quote

But we both know Scherzo was right. If I had said those things I would have you guys on me like white on rice. It just matter who says the comments I guess.

You can live in that world view if you like G.  I'd point out that it's a victim POV but then you probably already know that.  We've all know each other a long time [at least in the we all post here sense anyway] and your fantasies about how everyone is out to get you got old a long time ago.  The truth is you hold untenable positions on many issues in my view.  Just as I hold untenable positions in yours.  You never hesitate to tell me, or anyone else now do you.  Why should we hesitate to tell you?  

None of it means we are out to get you and are looking to jump on every word yous say.  You don't see me positing that "G will jump on every word I say", and yet you pretty much do.  *I* just know that that is because we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on a majority of issues, and NOT because you are out to "get me" as part of some paranoia.  What it does mean, is that I [we] think you are wrong on many occasions.  And that is an opinion I'm [we're] allowed to express, so bite the bullet and live with it.  We all have to bite the bullet and read your opinions.  

So, no I will not admit that scherzo is right or that you are, because life and board reality didn't happen that way.  And although it would be nice for you if you were right, you aren't because its not a situation where right and wrong can be assessed.  I'm not going to speculate about what I or anyone else would have done in some imagined scenario that DIDN'T HAPPEN.  And as much as you think you know me well enough to predict my behavior, know that you just flat out don't.  Just like I don't know you or scherzo well enough to predict your behavior here, in a conversation, or anywhere else.  It's silly to make such a declarative statement anyway, but if you two want to engage your imaginations and lament over how we're all out to get you--have at it.  I guess it's easier than looking at the fact that we just think you are flat out wrong a lot of the time.  *shrugs*

Truth is, G you had an opportunity to say that women are responsible for their own behavior and you didn't.  So the speculation about what I or anyone else would have done *IF* you had said it is absurd, since you didn't say it and you certainly had the opportunity.  Leaving me to believe that you wouldn't say it, because well, you didn't.  See?  

But let's not let the facts interfere with a a nice conspiracy theory.  

Edited by Cait, 31 December 2007 - 12:56 PM.

[BklnScott]

scherzo, on Dec 31 2007, 05:26 AM, said:

Quote

Additionally I'd like to make a comment about the 'who is to blame' thing here in this thread. I think it's being missed, but Scott is not talking about blaming the women for what someone else did to them. He is saying they could have prevented the damage if they had been responsible. That's a different issue entirely. Many here seem to think that statement is relieving the man of his responsibility. It doesn't.

Relieving the man of his responsibility was ENTIRELY Scott's point.(at least legally speaking) He didn't post to ruminate on the hazards and pitfalls of 21st century human sexuality. He's arguing that the womens consent absolves HIV guy from any legal repercussion whatsoever. Once again...here's what the "bottom line" is in the world according to EVill:

"...the bottom line is that every single one of those women is responsible for her own seroconversion, and this man should not be treated by the law as though he was a rapist or a child molester."

You say the women's poor judgment doesn't impact his crime, but you're trying to pass off your argument for his, when I doubt you'd even agree with Scott on the genuine magnitude of what a diagnosis of HIV will mean for these victims. My theory is, if G had made the same arguments, we'd have never made it to page 2 without charges of "misogyny" being thrown around. Just a theory..can't prove nuthin' o'course.     

-scherzo

Here's my first post in this thread -- all of it -- not just a selectively cut-and-pasted section:

Quote

Um... what? This guy is a scumbag, no question about it. He *should* have disclosed his status -- but the idea that he should be branded a sex offender and locked up *indefinitely* for failing to disclose his status is utter b*llsh*t. The idea that 2 people deciding together to have unsafe sex could ever possibly lead to either of them being charged with (let alone convicted of) "aggravated sexual assault" is equally ridiculous, and *very* scary.

None of these women would be HIV+ today if they hadn't agreed to let this man put his penis in their vaginas without wearing a condom. I'm sorry they're Poz--and again, I think he's a scumbag who should have disclosed his status--but the bottom line is that every single one of those women is responsible for her own seroconversion, and this man should not be treated by the law as though he was a rapist or a child molester.

It's important to note that the first post in this thread linked to an article that said this man, Carl Leone, faced life in prison for FAILING TO DISCLOSE his HIV status.  

Not for lying about his status while on a quest to deliberately infect as many women as he could.  

Not for drugging and violating these women while they were passed out.  

Those details weren't known until Specs linked to a second article -- whereupon I hastily changed my opinion (though I think it's clear from the post quoted above what I thought of the guy even when it seemed all he had done was fail to disclose his status).

[Cait]

OMG, thank you.  Just thank you.  

[G1223]

But till that second post which alluded strongly to his knowingly pass this illness onto his unknowing victims. You were blaming the victims. You expressed outrage at my comments.

My outrage was that you were blaming the victims. As if they were a willing partner in this disaster.


And by willing  I mean were informed of the risks and took them anyway. They were willing to have sex with the guy because he said he was safe and had no magic lie detector to help sort the BS he was throwing around.

I find blamming the victims as being the worse of things I have ever read here. No matter how you want to backslide on defending the guy you did and tried to your level best to place blame on those five women who are going to die much younger than they might have otherwise for the deliberate acts of that man.


You had other besides me pointing out where this was a deliberate act. You had people pointing out before the second article was posted that you were wrong and still you went on pointing at those women. Their arguements were based on the info that was there in the orginal article and it pointed to a deliberat act.

[Cait]

G1223, on Dec 31 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

But till that second post which alluded strongly to his knowingly pass this illness onto his unknowing victims. You were blaming the victims. You expressed outrage at my comments.

My outrage was that you were blaming the victims. As if they were a willing partner in this disaster.

Damn we keep coming back to this point.  No one was blaming the victims.  BUT, they are still responsible for their own sexual choices.  Why some of you can't concede this point is just beyond me.  

It's not about blaming the women and letting this scumbag off.  You act like it is all or nothing.  If we say women are responsible for their sexual choices then that opens the door for a man to do anything he wants without consequence.  WHICH. IS. NOT. WHAT. I. AM. SAYING.  He is still a criminal scumbag who should face the law and all of its consequences.  

But those women exercised poor judgment and it has led them to a consequence too--they are infected with HIV.  Had they given their sexual choices more thought, they might have avoided this consequence entirely.  The man would still be a scumbag even if the women weren't infected.  But they might have missed the bullet had they taken precautions.  Can't you see this?  

He is a criminal and should face the law.  They were stupid and might lose their lives because of it.  The more women protect themselves the safer they will be.  There will always be scumbags out there who don't give a damn about the health of the women they screw.  Women have to care about themselves.  The man is a legal problem, the women are a social problem.  These are different arenas of responsibility and different consequences, but you can't possibly be saying that women aren't responsible for their choices.  You just can't be saying that.  We are ALL responsible for our choices.

[BklnScott]

G1223, on Dec 31 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

You had other besides me pointing out where this was a deliberate act. You had people pointing out before the second article was posted that you were wrong and still you went on pointing at those women. Their arguements were based on the info that was there in the orginal article and it pointed to a deliberat act.

Find and post for us, please, the part of the original article that alleges Leone lied to the women about his HIV status.  Find and post for us, please, the part of the original article that alleges Leone drugged these women.  Find and post for us, please, the part of the original article that alleges Leone violated these women while they were passed out.

But, please, don't hurt your eyes looking for those parts of the article, 'cause I just re-read it to be sure: it's not there.  This is what's there:

Quote

The Crown is seeking a dangerous offender label for the Windsor businessman, who pleaded guilty last spring to 15 counts of aggravated sexual assault for engaging in sexual relations without telling his partners of his HIV-positive status. Five of those 15 women were infected with the virus that can lead to AIDS.

So prior to Specs linking to the second article, anyone who claimed to know this was anything more than a case of a man failing to disclose his HIV status was either assuming, or basing their conclusion on information from another source -- information they failed to pass on to the group.  

Which didn't prevent you from calling for Carl Leone to be murdered, now did it.

[Lin731]

God I hate to say it because I respect you alot Scott but that article told me everything I needed to know. This man failed to disclose he was HIV positive to his sexual partners...period. If I was HIV positive I would never have sex with someone who was ignorant of my status, not even with a condom, condoms do fail. In my mind, doing that would be like playing Russian Roulette with someone elses life. It's wrong, PERIOD. I tend to take serious issue with government interference into personal matters but IMO, I think it should be criminal to have uninformed sex with someone who doesn't know the other person is HIV positive. Informed consent should be the standard when someone KNOWS they have a virus with the potential to kill or seriously shorten their partners life. Yes condoms should ALWAYS be used regardless but when someone knows they're HIV positive, it should absolutely be expected along with informing your partner. If I have a transmittable disease with the potential to kill or shortner another persons life, the onus is on ME to protect the other person. Just my opinion.