« PHOTOS: Boris Kodjoe Tweets the Latest on Zombie-Killing Hotness | Main | VIDEO: Clinton Outlines New Policy to Focus on Global HIV Treatment »

07 November 2011


Derrick from Philly

OK, Mr Hart was wrong in not disclosing his HIV status, BUT what the hell were the so-called victims thinking? You protect yourself, dammit! You assume that anyone you meet could be HIV positive and you protect yourself accordingly.

Nobody should be willing to die for love...or dingdong.

"Yes, Derrick, but you took the risk of death by letting dangerous Trade in your home, b.tch."

Yep, but I made them put a rubber on that danger, dear. Always.


Great comment Derrick! I agree with you. We have to overcome this victim mentality especially with the knowledge that we now have as a community...maybe we need to work on the self-responsibility and self-love piece a little more.


Yes, Hart was wrong....but come on. Two months of unprotected sex?? Without a discussion or joint-testing?? Once could be blamed on the power of lust and impulsiveness, but, i assume, multiple sessions in two months! I really don't understand. Are we just going to continue breezing throuh life hoping others treat us with the kind of respect we should first have for our selves then demand from others?? The victim was willingly complicit in his own victimization. I'm sorry but where was the outrage the second time he got in front of or behind that "thing"?? Two months?? I can't. But I really hope this forces both of them to make better choices.


Dead@put a rubber on that danger


But real talk, you could die from that danger. HIV is not the only bug one can catch from unprotected sex. The other 'H' viruses are no joke either: Herpes, Hepatitis B, and Human papillomavirus. Bacterial dangers are no fun either. Prosecuting someone for bioterrorism is nonsensical and jail/prison is the last place a person with HIV or any immune system suppressed person needs to be.


i'd rather the guys like Hart who are prosecuted for this be sentenced to community service. Maybe if gay men were face to face with him, they can see up close what endangers them by not protecting themselves.

Putting him in jail for up to 4 months really serves no one.


Here is what I believe, I think that law needs to be tweaked a little bit. There needs to be a "you stupid idiot" clause that says if you DONT ASK your sexual partner prior to having UNPROTECTED SEX if they are POZ or not, you wont hold the HIV POSITIVE person liable for a possible infection.

Now, I know no clause like that will ever exist, but you get my point. Why are you having unprotected sex and have no clue the status of the person your sexing it up with.

This is like crossing the street when the light is still green. You might get hit, and you might not get hit by a car. Its the risk you take and you bear the responsibility of whatever outcome happens.. However, if you wait till the light is red, your chances of getting hit by the car is slim to none. Same thing with this, if you dont ask, you MIGHT or MIGHT NOT get infected. Only YOU can control your outcome.

Yeah dude was DEAD WRONG for sexing it up unprotected while being POZ, but the other dude was wrong too for not asking. I see no reason to lock ole boy up. They mutually layed down with each other, now they mutually need to deal with the outcome. Thankfully in this case, thus far the outcome is the other dude has not turned out poz.

Bet he'll ask next time.


Yes everyone must be responsible about sex. Don't put your health in others hands. I have many feelings about this.. disgust, anger and sadness.

DISGUSTED that someone would knowingly go around having unprotected sex with an HIV positive status.

ANGRY that our society aides this behavior by stigmatizing black gay men to a sometimes disproportionate amount (especially the Black community and/or Church).

SADNESS because this young man has a terrible disease and is young. Also, may have spread the disease to several others.


1 minute in and I'm confused:

ABC 11 probably reported the White Man In the Red Shirt being charged for nondisclosure of HIV, and for them to say that this was unheard of (ie groundbreaking, newsworthy, etc) and simply use the words "this man" without a name, kinda seems wrong to me.


Good-lookin dude with a townhouse, so it looks like he is doing well for himself. I hope he can learn from this, but I hope he does not have to go to jail...that would serve no purpose. I agree community service should be sufficient.

I'm so happy there are drugs to keep people alive from this terrible disease. I hate to see so many young people stigmatize b/c there are HIV poz.

Seven Duece

Not sure how to feel about this. Of course the other guy should have asked. But let's keep it real, EVERYONE has slipped up and at that momemt (or any one of them) the person with H.I.V. should find the ability to say, "Hey I just want you to know something." We're not talking about protected sex and not discussing it; this is willful negligence and outright disregard of another person's life.


Pretty much agree with what everyone else said. One time unprotected is dangerous, but understandable (lust and all that jazz). But two months? I also think community service would be better than jail.


“Blacks and gays of color are disproportionately singled out for prosecution, according to data presented at AIDS 2010 in Vienna.”

This is a major surprise. Not. It’s somehow analogous to how possession of crack cocaine was so much more severely punished than possession of powder.

People always talk about DWB, but it seems as if everything is punishable WB.

(But so long as the folks on Fox News assure me that racism is all a thing of the past, then I’m OK. Really.)


I think everyone is losing focus of this story. The specifics dont matter to me. What I know is that if you are positive you should make that CLEAR and UP FRONT to whomever you're f*cking. Withholding the information is just as guilty to me. We dont know if the partner inquired and the Poz one denied. But that doesnt interest me. Gay men -- Particuarly black gay men need to get with the program and start having a lot more respect for OURSELVES and each other. Its crazy now adays to watch porn and EVERYBODY is fucking raw. I swear the gays are taking the fun out of being gay. smh


Anyone with half a brain in 2011 KNOWS about HIV. Even if someone tells you they are negative you should STILL protect yourself. I agree this law needs to be tweaked and the "victim" should be exposed as well and he or she needs to take some of the responsibility (excusing rape cases) However, considering how conservative straight people are on this issue I don't see this law being touched at all. It will eventually become an issue if HIV Positive people sue for discrimination in various states. It is most unfortunate those who are positive are treated like zombies who are supposed to shut down their ability to love and have relationships. I know people dealing with the isolation right now. Who protects them if they do disclose their status and the person decides not to have sex with them and then spreads their personal business? I have no doubt that we have ALL (gay and straight) been to bed with someone who is positive in our past. This law was created out of fear and it's almost 20 years old. A lot has changed since then.


It does not matter if you ask or not-- just assume they are poz and protect yourself accordingly!!

People can lie to you even if you ask, or they may not even know they are poz themself, use a condom everytime, and decrease the risk!


The earlier posts are interesting. I'd like to at to the dialogue by sharing that I have a friend that was in what he thought was a monogamist relationship and after five years they decided to discontinue the use of condoms. They were tested before becoming sexually active with each other and were tested again when they decided on the discontinuation of the condoms and again when they decided to actually get married not very long ago. Unfortunately, my friend was infected, as was his partner of 7-years who got HIV from somebody along the way, only admitting to his indiscretions after the fact. Lies, denial, and not knowing (or wanting to know) ones status infect people. Should married people also be expected to use protection? There are straight couples dealing with the same issue where people think that they are consenting to one thing, but are actually opening themselves up to the other parties indulgences. Legal terms would be satisfied where "two consenting adults" engage in an adult activity...but that it with the presupposition that everyone is on equal footing. It is morally wrong to know that you are positive and not take measures to protect the other person...and in some states its actually illegal -- and if the overtly asked you about your status or assumed you were "clean" because you don't look ill is inconsequential. One should ask the question...If I disclosed my status, how might that disclosure impact the forward movement of this encounter? If your positive...do yourself and the other person a favor and protect everybody. commited relationships are a bit more complicated.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad