When It Comes to Unprotected Sex, Better Safe Than Sorry

As you know, Boi had a previous master who it turns out lied to him about his HIV status.  He told him he was negative, when he knew full well he was in fact, positive and then had unprotected sex with boi. The lesson boi learned a bit too late,  is that you should not trust anyone when dealing with such an important question and your own health.

Slaves and subs like to think that they need to obey every command, and it is incorrect to resist a master's demands, even if he wants to bareback.  But in my world, the world of homosexual coupling, each of us, including the slave, has to be solely responsible for his own health, safety and risk taking.

Take a peek at the poster and understand that you don't really know if he is positive or negative for a couple of reasons;

• You only know what he tells you, not whether it is factual or not ("How do you know, what you know?")
• Since HIV+ takes several weeks to show up, if the guy has had unprotected sex and has not been retested AFTER the three weeks, no one knows!

Boi maintains that IF he had known the guy was positive, he would of never ever had unprotected sex and possibly not even protected sex. His point is that he was not given the true facts so he could adequately judge the risks and then decide on an informed basis.

Boi complied with the State and Health Clinic requirements that he list his sexual partners and who he thought he got infected by.  The Clinic will then be in touch those men, in order to inform them of boi's HIV status, and recommend that they come in to be tested.  Should the person he thinks infected him have also been reported by others, they may take action with the local legal entity to further investigate the potential criminal actions of the person.

It is not a crime to be HIV +, but as boi points out in his recent blog, in most states it is a crime to not inform a sexual partner of your + HIV status before you have sex with or without a condom, if you are positive.  To not do so is considered at the minimum, reckless behavior with the intent to potentially harm others and is punishable by law.

Consequently, boi also faces an issue now what he should do about the guy who he believes purposefully told him he was negative, even though he wasn't, and then insisted on bareback unprotected sex, thus infecting boi. Such action is a criminal offense in most states, including boi's.

Boi knows from others that the guy is still active sexually, and he doesn't believe the guy will suddenly change colors and tell his partners he is +, nor stop having unprotected sex.

The question is: should boi file a criminal compliant?  If he does, and should they, after investigation, press charges against the guy, is boi ready for his own gay sexuality to be paraded in front of a court or newspapers? What obligation does boi have to other likely victims; to society? Hasn't boi already been put through enough? Does boi have a moral obligation to try and protect others from this guy?

              Yes, treatment of HIV has greatly improved the length of life, but the impact on the person and others is  HUGE: 

  > The cost of treating boi is approximately $20,000/year (more than 100% of his paycheck)
    >As a contract employee, boi has no health insurance and has applied to get assistance to  pay for the drugs and in order to survive
   > In the early days of AIDS life expectancy from the day of the confirmed test+ was about 3 years, in 2006 it is closer to 22 years and has been increasing each year (much better, but still shorter than normal life expectancy and of course at a much higher lifetime cost, which can easily exceed $450,000)
>Should boi ever cease treatment,  he knows that death would be the result



What do you think boi should do in regard to filing a criminal compliant?  (Hit the comment button, and leave your comments).

--Master