HIV positive man who had unprotected sex avoids jail time

Quote:

---

HIV positive man who had unprotected sex avoids jail time

---

Quote:

---

August 11, 2008 10:24am
A GEELONG man who had unprotected sex with a woman despite knowing he was HIV positive has avoided prison time.
Lam Kuoth, 28, pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly endangering another person.

Kuoth had sex with the woman twice on April 22, 2007, after they went to a Melbourne nightclub.

He did not inform her he had HIV.

Victorian County Court Judge Paul Lacava today jailed Kuoth for two years but suspended the sentence for a period of three years.

He also placed Kuoth on a two-year community based order.

---

Should be jail time IMO....

Thats how my ex got HIV (not off me I hasten to add)

Thai man who was her Bf after me gave it to her.

When she found out, (it was me who told her, as i'd helped her out financially with some medical treatment and the surgery asked me to tell her), she then obviously told him and he was like,,,,

"Oh yes, well, I already had it."

charming.

OK, linky? And wouldn't this be better in Issues? Please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

OK, linky? And wouldn't this be better in Issues? Please?

---

oops, you are probably right. where is that room again?

perhaps a friendly mod might move it....I'm scared to venture in there...

^ But I haven't really ventured in there for ages. I'm not up enough on current affairs to hold my own. I love stuff like this - more principles than current affairs... ;)

here's the linky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

here's the linky

---

Thanks. Didn't realise the OP was the whole story. :(

The lenient sentence makes me wonder if there's something not being said. Doesn't say if she was infected - maybe that's it.

Yes, it's a bad thing to do KW. But how many women in the Western world today are stupid enough to have unprotected sex with a one-night stand? No, she doesn't deserve HIV or even the scare of thinking she may have it. But the AIDS threat has been over all of us (male & female) for more than 20 years now. When are both sexes going to wise up & realise it's a possibility that you'll contract HIV (or hepatitis or another STD) from unprotected sex?


I'd be much more upset about this if he had raped her. As they had consensual unprotected sex twice, it does make me think the woman bears some responsibility in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

I'd be much more upset about this if he had raped her.

---

yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

As they had consensual unprotected sex twice, it does make me think the woman bears some responsibility in this.

---

dont agree, its lying by omission,

if he knows he is HIV+ and he knows that unprotected sex is much more likely to give it to her, and we all know that HIV+ = eventual death....

then its not far off manslaughter....

or at the very least it is endangering human life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

or at the very least it is endangering human life

---

That applies to most Thais on the road.
Joking apart, if he knew before hand then yes lock him up. But then he'll get free medical treatment which is a downer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

Doesn't say if she was infected - maybe that's it.

---

chances are about 0.0002 to 1000 i think.

^

what ? unprotected viginal intercourse with a HIV positive male ??

cite please ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

cite please ??

---

i gave the link, several of them in that hiv thread long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Quote: Originally Posted by Mid cite please ?? i gave the link, several of them in that hiv thread long time ago.

---

and even if correct, are wildly inaccurate anyway,

to out a number on the 'chance' of contracting HIV from a HIV+ person borders on the silly,

factors such as current health
type of sex, rough, anal, etc
other STD's present

can multiply the chances, which once you have it is 100% death. (unless a cure is found in yours and my life time)

not that many other diseases on this planet are 100% fatal - more virulent, more contagious, more horrible a death....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

to out a number on the 'chance' of contracting HIV from a HIV+ person borders on the silly,

---

quite.

nobody can actually stick a number on it, but the chance would appear to be pretty slim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

factors such as current health
type of sex, rough, anal, etc
other STD's present

---

new research suggests that Africans might be at a higher risk.

Risk of HIV infection may be higher for Africans, study says - International Herald Tribune

Google Answers: hiv

1 in a thousand NOT .00002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

dont agree, its lying by omission, if he knows he is HIV+ and he knows that unprotected sex is much more likely to give it to her, and we all know that HIV+ = eventual death.... then its not far off manslaughter.... or at the very least it is endangering human life

---

Yes, it is endangering human life. I'm not excusing his behaviour, it's diabolical. But I still can't get my head around a Western woman having unprotected sex with a stranger in this day & age. We're not talking third world here. We're not talking about a woman trying to make a pittance for her family & talked into not using a condom. We're talking a woman who has supposedly had the benefit of education & media exposure on the subject of HIV/AIDS for 2 decades.

erm, probably more common than you would think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

1 in a thousand NOT .00002

---

depends which figures you want to believe.

In any case, one common theme is that it takes multiple exposure to an infected patient to seriously enhance the risk.

I find the lack of any substantial evidence either way very telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

erm, probably more common than you would think

---

much, much more common.

Quote:

---

depends which figures you want to believe.

---

those that have a cite as opposed to those pulled outa thin air .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

erm, probably more common than you would think

---

much, much more common.

---

OK.

And the point you're both making is?

Can't imagine.

'It's OK for women to be stupid about this, despite the benefit of education & media because they're only women?'

Neither of you would be that crass. So, what is your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

OK. And the point you're both making is? Can't imagine. 'It's OK for women to be stupid about this, despite the benefit of education & media because they're only women?' Neither of you would be that crass. So, what is your point?

---

I meant that having unprotected sex (male or female, western or nonwestern, gay or straight) is quite common...

Not smart, not good, but not rare.

I know of quite a number of people who admit to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

those that have a cite as opposed to those pulled outa thin air .

---

can't remember where I got the figure from but it referred to female to male, so my bad.

in any case i am highly skeptical of the HIV message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

I meant that having unprotected sex (male or female, western or nonwestern, gay or straight) is quite common... Not smart, not good, but not rare. I know of quite a number of people who admit to it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

in any case i am highly skeptical of the HIV message.

---

Interesting.

So, a man or woman who knowingly sleeps with another when they have an STD is reprehensible (agreed). But the potential receiver of the STD is what? Naive? Gullible? An innocent? A victim? They know the facts & the risks. They ignore them. What does that make them?

Playing Russian Roulette, the risks are there, alcohol is the usual trigger for one night stands as in the OP. Interestingly the article doesn't state how she found out he was HIV positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

But the potential receiver of the STD is what? Naive? Gullible? An innocent? A victim? They know the facts & the risks. They ignore them. What does that make them?

---

i don't know.

no idea what goes through these people's heads. i'm monogomous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by November Rain

OK. And the point you're both making is? Can't imagine. 'It's OK for women to be stupid about this, despite the benefit of education & media because they're only women?' Neither of you would be that crass. So, what is your point?

---

I meant that having unprotected sex (male or female, western or nonwestern, gay or straight) is quite common...

Not smart, not good, but not rare.

I know of quite a number of people who admit to it.

---

__________________________________________________ ___________________

In fact, here's a guy that will even pay Thai women to have unprotected sex with him: http://www.notstickmanbangkok.com/Weekly2007/IsTheRiskAcceptable.htm

^^ celibacy is the new monogamy.

Many people also think monogamy is just a piece of wood.

Anyone who is knowlingly HIV positive and has unprotected sex with another human being is IMO holding a loaded gun against that person's head and has pullled the trigger.

Sure the gun might missfire and the other person survives the threat but the intention is there and they are a real danger to society.

Jail time and intense counselling should be their only reward.

Thank God it's a 'Hard Wood'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

Quote:

---

depends which figures you want to believe.

---

those that have a cite as opposed to those pulled outa thin air .

---

One problem with the statistic is the methodology of data collection. Try and think about it. I would assume that 90%+ of people that are HIV+ having unproteced sex with an HIV- partner don't know they are HIV+, so these results are missed from the equation in any case. Of those that can be analysed, someone that is found to be HIV+ and infects his partner, the newly infected parter has no idea whether the infection occurred 1 bonk ago or 1000 bonks ago. The original infectee may not know the source of his infection, therefore skewing the timescale of his period of infection.

All in all, an impossible statistic to calculate, hence the ambiguitity and misinformation out there.

I remember meeting a British tourist out here a few months ago. He was planning to live in Thailand because it is apparently the sex capital of the world, brimming with beautiful women all dying to have sex with him.

Apparently he has never used a condom and even pays extra so the bar-girls won't insist on him doing so.

In answer to November Rain's question. If the person being infected is actually paying an infected prostitute extra for unprotected sex then it makes them incredibly dumb. A Thai female presented with this dilemma won't know how to tell the guy he has had a bad idea as it may offend him.

I am all for unprotected sex in a stable relationship, but casual relationships demand condoms in this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

I am all for unprotected sex in a stable relationship, but casual relationships demand condoms in this day and age.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

I am all for unprotected sex in a stable relationship

---

How do you know what is stable ? You may think you do but can you guarentee it. The husband/wife is always the last to know. So they say.

^ I guess you have to trust your partner. Sometimes that trust is misplaced. Sometimes it goes very, very wrong. However, the case in the OP was most definitely a 'casual sex' situation, not 'stable relationship'