Man charged with knowingly transferring HIV to woman he met at Bethesda bar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She might have thought the chances were highly unlikely. Let's be honest, the face of HIV/AIDS is not a White woman or man in Bethesda. And I say this as a Black woman.

I'm early 30s and I remember when people were dropping like flies in the 80s and early 90s. My siblings are mid-20s and younger and they don't know of anyone who has died from complications. People seemingly live forever with meds today.

So keep that in mind before you judge. If she's using BC, she might have thought her biggest threat was something that could be treated with antibiotics.

The bolder above is an ignorant comment.

On the contrary, the face of AIDS IS a white woman or man in Bethesda. That's the whole point. People who think a person has to "look" a certain way to be "clean" are foolish. HIV isn't driven by (insert stereotype) people! Anyone can have it. Maybe instead people should keep in mind to judge more carefully, with a more conservative approach! And "seemingly living forever" with HIV still has it's complications, meds or not.

Respectfully,
Another AA woman w/ a 20 something AA relative that is living w/ HIV transmitted from a gay white person

Come on . Your sign off proves the point. The face of aids is : poor 3rd world people, black gay men, white gay men, and Black women. That's how it is portrayed. Signed AA, 40. Sister to AA 62 HIV+ with AIDS from the 2000s.

[Anonymous]

7xin one weekend with a dude she just met...
Dayum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She might have thought the chances were highly unlikely. Let's be honest, the face of HIV/AIDS is not a White woman or man in Bethesda. And I say this as a Black woman.

I'm early 30s and I remember when people were dropping like flies in the 80s and early 90s. My siblings are mid-20s and younger and they don't know of anyone who has died from complications. People seemingly live forever with meds today.

So keep that in mind before you judge. If she's using BC, she might have thought her biggest threat was something that could be treated with antibiotics.

The bolder above is an ignorant comment.

On the contrary, the face of AIDS IS a white woman or man in Bethesda. That's the whole point. People who think a person has to "look" a certain way to be "clean" are foolish. HIV isn't driven by (insert stereotype) people! Anyone can have it. Maybe instead people should keep in mind to judge more carefully, with a more conservative approach! And "seemingly living forever" with HIV still has it's complications, meds or not.

Respectfully,
Another AA woman w/ a 20 something AA relative that is living w/ HIV transmitted from a gay white person

Come on . Your sign off proves the point. The face of aids is : poor 3rd world people, black gay men, white gay men, and Black women. That's how it is portrayed. Signed AA, 40. Sister to AA 62 HIV+ with AIDS from the 2000s.

No, my sign-off doesn't prove the point. My sign-off is a demonstration that while it is true that gay men, black men, and drug users are disproportionately the ones more affected by HIV/AIDS, they are NOT the ONLY ones. Especially with the new classifications of Men having sex with Men - who don't identify with themselves as being gay. What about the hispanic population? Notice where white heterosexual women fall on the spectrum? My entire point in saying my statement above is that ANYONE can have HIV and you CANNOT assume that just because they are not black, gay, bi-sexual, or a drug user, that they are "clean". People need to use protection. I don't udnerstand what is so difficult about this. If you don't protect yourself, there is a risk. PERIOD.

The OPs article proves THAT point.


http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/older-americans-the-changing-face-of-hiv/aids-in-america

Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html



- Respectfully Signed,
Same 30 something AA woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this woman has random sex and then claims he gave her aids. But she probably sleeps with a lot of men and any of them could have given her aids. Or she probably has infected others. So this man is being charged because he is hiv positive, not for having sex with her

It's multiple charges now. Do you people read?

I read. Do you see that the Bethesda woman in question, per OPs link is not claiming rape? It was consensual sex for her.

His behavior (knowingly transferring HIV, sexual assault with others) and her behavior (consensual sex without a condom) are both independent valid concerns, but both are wrong.

I am OP the additional articles and blogs are posted in thread its multiple women and blacking out etc...

Yes, I read those. But all of those articles reference cases with other women - NOT the one in Bethesda that I was addressing. Which is why I said that it was consensual for her. I made no comment on the other women. I will reiterate that his behavior was completely inappropriate and, I agree that he should be convicted for what he did. But you cannot lump the woman in Bethesda in as a victim of the same crime of sexual assault he committed with women in Richmond. You can say they were all victims of the crime of being given HIV intentionally. Also, the woman in Bethesda is not claiming sexual assault, rape, or blacking out. The other women are. At best, it furtherv validates Bethesda woman's claims. But that doesn't mean that the Bethesda woman did not have consensual sex. This is why I said there are two valid issues: his history, and her attitude towards having unprotected consensual sex, are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7xin one weekend with a dude she just met...
Dayum

7x in one day with a woman he just met. Are your feelings the same or because he's a guy it's all good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She might have thought the chances were highly unlikely. Let's be honest, the face of HIV/AIDS is not a White woman or man in Bethesda. And I say this as a Black woman.

I'm early 30s and I remember when people were dropping like flies in the 80s and early 90s. My siblings are mid-20s and younger and they don't know of anyone who has died from complications. People seemingly live forever with meds today.

So keep that in mind before you judge. If she's using BC, she might have thought her biggest threat was something that could be treated with antibiotics.

The bolder above is an ignorant comment.

On the contrary, the face of AIDS IS a white woman or man in Bethesda. That's the whole point. People who think a person has to "look" a certain way to be "clean" are foolish. HIV isn't driven by (insert stereotype) people! Anyone can have it. Maybe instead people should keep in mind to judge more carefully, with a more conservative approach! And "seemingly living forever" with HIV still has it's complications, meds or not.

Respectfully,
Another AA woman w/ a 20 something AA relative that is living w/ HIV transmitted from a gay white person

Come on . Your sign off proves the point. The face of aids is : poor 3rd world people, black gay men, white gay men, and Black women. That's how it is portrayed. Signed AA, 40. Sister to AA 62 HIV+ with AIDS from the 2000s.

No, my sign-off doesn't prove the point. My sign-off is a demonstration that while it is true that gay men, black men, and drug users are disproportionately the ones more affected by HIV/AIDS, they are NOT the ONLY ones. Especially with the new classifications of Men having sex with Men - who don't identify with themselves as being gay. What about the hispanic population? Notice where white heterosexual women fall on the spectrum? My entire point in saying my statement above is that ANYONE can have HIV and you CANNOT assume that just because they are not black, gay, bi-sexual, or a drug user, that they are "clean". People need to use protection. I don't udnerstand what is so difficult about this. If you don't protect yourself, there is a risk. PERIOD.

The OPs article proves THAT point.


http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/older-americans-the-changing-face-of-hiv/aids-in-america

Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html



- Respectfully Signed,
Same 30 something AA woman

Well guess you told me . Or you know this is not how the media portrays it. But thanks for filing another stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this woman has random sex and then claims he gave her aids. But she probably sleeps with a lot of men and any of them could have given her aids. Or she probably has infected others. So this man is being charged because he is hiv positive, not for having sex with her

It's multiple charges now. Do you people read?

I read. Do you see that the Bethesda woman in question, per OPs link is not claiming rape? It was consensual sex for her.

His behavior (knowingly transferring HIV, sexual assault with others) and her behavior (consensual sex without a condom) are both independent valid concerns, but both are wrong.

I am OP the additional articles and blogs are posted in thread its multiple women and blacking out etc...

Yes, I read those. But all of those articles reference cases with other women - NOT the one in Bethesda that I was addressing. Which is why I said that it was consensual for her. I made no comment on the other women. I will reiterate that his behavior was completely inappropriate and, I agree that he should be convicted for what he did. But you cannot lump the woman in Bethesda in as a victim of the same crime of sexual assault he committed with women in Richmond. You can say they were all victims of the crime of being given HIV intentionally. Also, the woman in Bethesda is not claiming sexual assault, rape, or blacking out. The other women are. At best, it furtherv validates Bethesda woman's claims. But that doesn't mean that the Bethesda woman did not have consensual sex. This is why I said there are two valid issues: his history, and her attitude towards having unprotected consensual sex, are mutually exclusive.

I'm sure there is more to the Bethesda story. They met at a bar... Fits his MO... And yes there are cases where it starts with a roofie and the woman assumes she was drunk and consented.
Shocked at the victim blaming on this on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this woman has random sex and then claims he gave her aids. But she probably sleeps with a lot of men and any of them could have given her aids. Or she probably has infected others. So this man is being charged because he is hiv positive, not for having sex with her

It's multiple charges now. Do you people read?

I read. Do you see that the Bethesda woman in question, per OPs link is not claiming rape? It was consensual sex for her.

His behavior (knowingly transferring HIV, sexual assault with others) and her behavior (consensual sex without a condom) are both independent valid concerns, but both are wrong.

I am OP the additional articles and blogs are posted in thread its multiple women and blacking out etc...

Yes, I read those. But all of those articles reference cases with other women - NOT the one in Bethesda that I was addressing. Which is why I said that it was consensual for her. I made no comment on the other women. I will reiterate that his behavior was completely inappropriate and, I agree that he should be convicted for what he did. But you cannot lump the woman in Bethesda in as a victim of the same crime of sexual assault he committed with women in Richmond. You can say they were all victims of the crime of being given HIV intentionally. Also, the woman in Bethesda is not claiming sexual assault, rape, or blacking out. The other women are. At best, it furtherv validates Bethesda woman's claims. But that doesn't mean that the Bethesda woman did not have consensual sex. This is why I said there are two valid issues: his history, and her attitude towards having unprotected consensual sex, are mutually exclusive.

I'm sure there is more to the Bethesda story. They met at a bar... Fits his MO... And yes there are cases where it starts with a roofie and the woman assumes she was drunk and consented.
Shocked at the victim blaming on this on

Unprotected sex with a stranger - seems like a perfectly normal and safe behavior to you? She's an idiot.

He's horrible for knowingly exposing her (and others?), but that in no way excuses her risky behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was in late July. It would not likely be detectable via blood test yet.

They would not have filed if it hadn't been transmitted. And if she dies first he'll catch a manslaughter or murder

But wouldn't she have immediately received prophylactic meds to lessen chances of contracting the disease? I don't know that she actually has it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was in late July. It would not likely be detectable via blood test yet.

They would not have filed if it hadn't been transmitted. And if she dies first he'll catch a manslaughter or murder

But wouldn't she have immediately received prophylactic meds to lessen chances of contracting the disease? I don't know that she actually has it.

If she found out within 72 hours, she should have been given post-exposure prophalaxis which is highly effective. It doesn't say if that actually happened, though. Also, if he was on HIV meds, that would have lowered the risk of transmission, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was in late July. It would not likely be detectable via blood test yet.

They would not have filed if it hadn't been transmitted. And if she dies first he'll catch a manslaughter or murder

But wouldn't she have immediately received prophylactic meds to lessen chances of contracting the disease? I don't know that she actually has it.

If she found out within 72 hours, she should have been given post-exposure prophalaxis which is highly effective. It doesn't say if that actually happened, though. Also, if he was on HIV meds, that would have lowered the risk of transmission, too.

I now know to do this but who knows to do this ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was in late July. It would not likely be detectable via blood test yet.

They would not have filed if it hadn't been transmitted. And if she dies first he'll catch a manslaughter or murder

But wouldn't she have immediately received prophylactic meds to lessen chances of contracting the disease? I don't know that she actually has it.

They don't know if she has contracted HIV.

The law says someone who knowingly attempts to transmit. They don't have to actually transmit it to be charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was in late July. It would not likely be detectable via blood test yet.

They would not have filed if it hadn't been transmitted. And if she dies first he'll catch a manslaughter or murder

Wrong on both counts.

No indication she is hiv+

Hiv is no longer a death sentence

This is incorrect. If you are HIV positive, you will at some point get AIDS. Better drugs have prolonging people's lives. So yes, it's not the 80s where people dropped like flies, but this guy is a total psychopath. Yes, the woman in Bethesda shouldn't have had unprotected sex, but there are a lot more women out there who have been a victim of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you just met someone at a bar and you don't use condoms? not letting the guy off the hook but what about personal responsibility?

That's your first reaction to hearing that a guy knowingly transmitted HIV to another person??

Not this poster but yes, it's what I thought too. The article I read said they had sex several times during the weekend. In all those times having sex, the victim didnt ask the man to wear a condom? Not even the first time they had sex? WTF

I have yet to meet a guy who will use a condom. They all refuse and just say they are clean.

Have you ever tried saying "No condom = no sex"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Yes, that's exactly what i thought, you gotta always protect yourself the best way you know how and in this case, it's pretty simple..use a condom when you're with a stranger.

+1

And not just a stranger..... even that one you've been sleeping with on and off for several months. Ew.