Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 29, 2009
Homo Positively Spokane
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 AM
A 22-year-old HIV+ man in Spokane has been charged with assault for exposing another man to HIV. Health officials are investigating and fear that Zuriel Roush, who hooked up with men online and in a cruisy park, "may have had unprotected sex with as many as 80 partners." Roush can't claim that he didn't know it was a crime to knowingly expose others to HIV: last year Roush signed "health district paperwork... warning him it was a crime to expose people to the virus without warning."
Discuss.
3
Sorry to be a humorless bore but gay or straight, anyone who knowingly exposes others to STDs is a dillweed. What's the big deal about using a condom again...?
4
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C…
This guy's lucky he's not being charged with murder. Personally, I think we should prosecute these people as aggressively as possible. Spreading HIV may not necessarily mean death, but it certainly fucks a lot of people's lives up.
Not that the other partner shouldn't be held responsible for having unprotected sex, but it's one thing to be negligent with your own body and another thing entirely to be negligent with someone else's.
This guy's lucky he's not being charged with murder. Personally, I think we should prosecute these people as aggressively as possible. Spreading HIV may not necessarily mean death, but it certainly fucks a lot of people's lives up.
Not that the other partner shouldn't be held responsible for having unprotected sex, but it's one thing to be negligent with your own body and another thing entirely to be negligent with someone else's.
5
This guy's behavior is deplorable, but everybody in Spokane knows that sex in People's Park is one of the sketchiest things you can do, regardless of whether you know a person's HIV status. This park is well known as a place to meet nasty trolls for sex. It is also a popular place for high school kids to have keggers lunch time 420 sessions. I would venture to guess that he is just one of many positive folks lurking in the bushes of the park.
8
Seems pretty clear to me, especially because he knew it was a crime. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew there'd be consequences.
Makes me ponder a similar situation. If a woman failed to tell her boyfriend that she stopped taking birth control, could he waive his obligation to pay child support? He may be legally bound (for now), but should he be? I have to side with the unknowing boyfriend on this one...but proof of knowledge/lack of knowledge would be near impossible to prove.
Makes me ponder a similar situation. If a woman failed to tell her boyfriend that she stopped taking birth control, could he waive his obligation to pay child support? He may be legally bound (for now), but should he be? I have to side with the unknowing boyfriend on this one...but proof of knowledge/lack of knowledge would be near impossible to prove.
9
Lying about it is one thing. Not saying anything about it during an anonymous sexual encounter is another.
If you're going to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger in a park and you're worried about catching HIV then you don't have unprotected sex with a complete stranger, period.
Yes, either way the guy with HIV is an asshole for not saying anything but the other guy isn't a victim if he puts himself in that situation willingly.
You HAVE to be responsible for your own health. Don't expect some dude in a park to do it for you.
If you're going to have unprotected sex with a complete stranger in a park and you're worried about catching HIV then you don't have unprotected sex with a complete stranger, period.
Yes, either way the guy with HIV is an asshole for not saying anything but the other guy isn't a victim if he puts himself in that situation willingly.
You HAVE to be responsible for your own health. Don't expect some dude in a park to do it for you.
10
@8 ummm. the woman's birth control is solely her responsibility ? but the man doesn't want kids so he gets off because she lied ?
a guy doesn't hiv , but he gets to sue ( or prosecute) when he gets aids from unprotectedv sex from a barely known trick in a park?..
these people are victims of their own ignorance and stupidity.
really
a guy doesn't hiv , but he gets to sue ( or prosecute) when he gets aids from unprotectedv sex from a barely known trick in a park?..
these people are victims of their own ignorance and stupidity.
really
12
Individuals who allow themselves to be infected with HIV are also at fault.
Sketchy sex in parks? Unprotected sex?
YOU got aids, it wasn't given to you.
ACQUIRED immunodeficiency syndrome.
Sketchy sex in parks? Unprotected sex?
YOU got aids, it wasn't given to you.
ACQUIRED immunodeficiency syndrome.
13
I'm not opposed to anonymous sex but it if you're going to have it you have to operate under the assumption that your partner may be HIV+.
This guy is an ass but the folks who had unprotected sex with him in a park based on his assertion that he was negative are delusional.
This guy is an ass but the folks who had unprotected sex with him in a park based on his assertion that he was negative are delusional.
14
It's a crime either way. If there's a crime, there's a victim (usually). aside from that, we don't know what he said to those guys, or if the guys asked.
16
Someone engaging in anonymous promiscuous sodomy was irresponsible?
Isn't that a violation of the "Gays are God's Perfect Little Gift to Humanity" rule of slog?
There must be more to the story Dan left out;
maybe the guy is really hetero, or a Youth Pastor, or a Republican Senator...
Isn't that a violation of the "Gays are God's Perfect Little Gift to Humanity" rule of slog?
There must be more to the story Dan left out;
maybe the guy is really hetero, or a Youth Pastor, or a Republican Senator...
17
It's such a sticky issue. There's a difference between exposure and transmission, and more and more the law seems to criminalize exposure. As for disclosing, what counts as "disclosure"? And how do you prove it after the fact? And how does this affect others' willingness to go get tested?
I believe in using public health measures (I'm in Canada) to address this public health issue. The courts should be brought in as a last-ditch effort, and not as a standard practice. There are "enforcement" tools available via public health (at least in Ontario) to approach this issue. That being said, it seems that this guy's story already took that route, and he chose to ignore it. THEN it's appropriate to involve the courts, but not before.
I believe in using public health measures (I'm in Canada) to address this public health issue. The courts should be brought in as a last-ditch effort, and not as a standard practice. There are "enforcement" tools available via public health (at least in Ontario) to approach this issue. That being said, it seems that this guy's story already took that route, and he chose to ignore it. THEN it's appropriate to involve the courts, but not before.
18
I'm with @15. When you have sex, you're taking a risk. I'm married, but I still get tested at my annual.
20
This story comes with pictures!
http://www.spokesman.com/tags/spokane-re…
80 partners?! Wow. And ugh. If this were fark, there would probably be some eye bleach comments, along with "do not wants".
/Was kind of hoping for a hot poz guy, of which there are many.
//Guys who spread without informing are douchebags. They're pathological and need to be lynched.
///Not all Poz guys are douchebags.
http://www.spokesman.com/tags/spokane-re…
80 partners?! Wow. And ugh. If this were fark, there would probably be some eye bleach comments, along with "do not wants".
/Was kind of hoping for a hot poz guy, of which there are many.
//Guys who spread without informing are douchebags. They're pathological and need to be lynched.
///Not all Poz guys are douchebags.
21
@10/12, i couldn't agree more. this motherfucker is evil, and should rot in hell, but doing it with a random stranger in a park with no protection is fucking stupid. and @10, i think that if the woman lies about something like that it should be taken into consideration. i've seen relationships wherein people were together, monogamously, for a few months while the woman was on the pill, so he had stopped using condoms. she, in turn, stopped taking the pill to trap him with a baby, or child support. it's fucked up, but it is what it is. it's not always ignorance. but this? this is ignorance through and through. (sorry i went on a tangent)
22
No, not all HIV+ guys are douchebags and disclosure is easy. Before having sex with someone you say, "I'm HIV+."
23
Your HIV status is your personal health information. It's not so simple for some people to tell a potential partner that they're positive. What about leaving your meds out in plain view? Is that disclosure? It's not always black and white.
I recognize that it goes beyond a personal issue once someone risks infecting another person. But people can't honestly go through life expecting that it's their partners' responsibility to protect them from any of the risks that come with sex. You can't rely on others to watch out for your sexual health, particularly in the context of a casual hook-up. Use a condom and then it won't be an issue.
I recognize that it goes beyond a personal issue once someone risks infecting another person. But people can't honestly go through life expecting that it's their partners' responsibility to protect them from any of the risks that come with sex. You can't rely on others to watch out for your sexual health, particularly in the context of a casual hook-up. Use a condom and then it won't be an issue.
24
OK
First off, I work in public health, I've been doing HIV prevention research for 5 years (today in fact is my last day coordinating the Boston Needle Exchange before I move to West Coast, possibly Seattle) and I am HIV-negative, somewhat of a rarity in the field.
Second of all, this guy is an amoral jerk.
Now to the gray areas. Laws the criminalize the transmission of HIV are dangerous for everybody. It encourages people not to get tested for HIV (you can't knowingly spread HIV if you don't know if you have it), and it adds to the stigma around the disease that is all ready pretty prevalant.
The stigma around HIV that already exists is part of what drives Poz men to haver sex in public parks and the internet, where in depth conversations--the kind of conversations where people ask about HIV statuses--are discouraged.
It takes two to tango, and if you are actually willing to put your health in the hands of someone you just met online or in a public cruising park, you clearly don't value your health enough to begin with.
This guy is a jerk, and he knew what he was doing had possible legal implications, so if he goes to jail he has no one to blame but himself. I just hope that this law gets lifted and people start being more skeptical and more safe with their annonymous tricks. That, not locking people up, is what's going to slow down this pandemic.
First off, I work in public health, I've been doing HIV prevention research for 5 years (today in fact is my last day coordinating the Boston Needle Exchange before I move to West Coast, possibly Seattle) and I am HIV-negative, somewhat of a rarity in the field.
Second of all, this guy is an amoral jerk.
Now to the gray areas. Laws the criminalize the transmission of HIV are dangerous for everybody. It encourages people not to get tested for HIV (you can't knowingly spread HIV if you don't know if you have it), and it adds to the stigma around the disease that is all ready pretty prevalant.
The stigma around HIV that already exists is part of what drives Poz men to haver sex in public parks and the internet, where in depth conversations--the kind of conversations where people ask about HIV statuses--are discouraged.
It takes two to tango, and if you are actually willing to put your health in the hands of someone you just met online or in a public cruising park, you clearly don't value your health enough to begin with.
This guy is a jerk, and he knew what he was doing had possible legal implications, so if he goes to jail he has no one to blame but himself. I just hope that this law gets lifted and people start being more skeptical and more safe with their annonymous tricks. That, not locking people up, is what's going to slow down this pandemic.
25
@20 -- wow, what a response from you. He's not ugly, just stupid etc.
Not everyone is as pretty as you are....
Not everyone is as pretty as you are....
27
@25 People with no souls should be judged on their outer beauty. And, ugh.
@26, he's 22. He's just a very harsh 22. And I'm not 30 yet, so...?
@26, he's 22. He's just a very harsh 22. And I'm not 30 yet, so...?
28
Two points:
@24 Knowingly exposing your partner to any STD is a battery at common law. Consent for sex obtained without full disclosure of known conditions would be considered fraudulently obtained in almost any jurisdiction. Sure, it may lead to bad policy outcomes, but it's been that way for nearly 500 years. One remedy may be compulsory testing, although probably not feasible. Practically speaking, people that avoid testing to avoid liability are really reckless and anybody who sleeps with them are equally reckless, however, that was not the case here and the common law is pretty clear.
Second, as far as the girlfriend who dupes her boyfriend into thinking she's on the pill. Well, he acted in reasonable reliance, so he should be off the hook. A woman who does this is probably unsavory in society's view, and so we may force her into a more extreme decision (such as abortion or adoption), but that is meant to serve as a deterrent for her lie. Although the man does bear some liability for engaging in sex, he shouldn't have to be overly cautious if someone else has exercised a reasonable level of caution. If she took the pill and it didn't work, then she should sue the drug manufacturer for the defect, not the boyfriend for child support.
But perhaps the non-negligent boyfriend should have more options against the malicious girlfriend. Perhaps he should be able to successfully sue for full custody, because we don't want children in this society raised by people of dubious moral character.
@24 Knowingly exposing your partner to any STD is a battery at common law. Consent for sex obtained without full disclosure of known conditions would be considered fraudulently obtained in almost any jurisdiction. Sure, it may lead to bad policy outcomes, but it's been that way for nearly 500 years. One remedy may be compulsory testing, although probably not feasible. Practically speaking, people that avoid testing to avoid liability are really reckless and anybody who sleeps with them are equally reckless, however, that was not the case here and the common law is pretty clear.
Second, as far as the girlfriend who dupes her boyfriend into thinking she's on the pill. Well, he acted in reasonable reliance, so he should be off the hook. A woman who does this is probably unsavory in society's view, and so we may force her into a more extreme decision (such as abortion or adoption), but that is meant to serve as a deterrent for her lie. Although the man does bear some liability for engaging in sex, he shouldn't have to be overly cautious if someone else has exercised a reasonable level of caution. If she took the pill and it didn't work, then she should sue the drug manufacturer for the defect, not the boyfriend for child support.
But perhaps the non-negligent boyfriend should have more options against the malicious girlfriend. Perhaps he should be able to successfully sue for full custody, because we don't want children in this society raised by people of dubious moral character.
29
People's Park is actually pretty nice as long as you don't make eye contact with any of the naked people. It's where I walk my dog.
30
To clarify #28: I was describing tort battery, meaning the victim should be able to sue. For criminal battery I would expect it should fall along the same lines because of the threat he poses to the general public.
31
I'm a gay man and so tired of having to live in a "community" where this is my peer group. Why can't we get our act in order?
32
I am more appalled by the fact that 80 persons did not take any protective measures . Are HIV prevention campaigns not effective ? My generation and Dan's paid the highest tribute to HIV/AIDS we've lost a lot of our loved ones. I hope that their deaths were not vain and useless
33
I'm an HIV epidemiologist with my state's health department, and charging someone with an HIV-related crime makes me a little nervous because it could drive positive people underground instead of into care, where they can get healthier and get their viral loads down and not be as infectious.
However, I think when you lie about being positive and don't use a condom, some form of punishment needs to be issued. Yes, the partner should have insisted on a condom, but the positive person didn't give them a chance to make an informed decision.
However, I think when you lie about being positive and don't use a condom, some form of punishment needs to be issued. Yes, the partner should have insisted on a condom, but the positive person didn't give them a chance to make an informed decision.
34
does it actually SAY in the article that his partners in the parks didn't use condoms? does it SAY that he didn't lie and tell them he was gonna use a condom? (i'm honestly asking, i didn't have time to read the article!)
True, cruisy sex is dangerous. But that doesn't mean that something like this is the victim's fault for being stupid. What if the condom broke? What if he pulled a condom off in the middle of sex? (Both of which have happened to me in the past. I was damn lucky to come out of it clean.)
I don't have all the facts, but to me this is the gay equivalent of a man picking a chick up in a bar and beating her senseless when he gets her home; then telling the judge " She shoulda known better than to go home with a guy she just met!".
We're ALL human, no matter how much some of us like to think we aren't. But this man is a human monster in the vein of Gaetan Dugas ( i probably got that spelling wrong since I was 12 when I read "And the Band Played On"; go ahead and rip me to pieces, kids.) and deserves to be shot on sight.
He willfully and knowingly exposed people to a life threatening virus. If he was a straight man spreading anthrax in a straight bar by buying slutty chicks drinks and putting it in the drinks, then he would still be considered a FUCKING TERRORIST.
Maybe god can forgive that type of evil; but as a mere human being I sure as hell can't. Things like this make me believe in the death penalty.
True, cruisy sex is dangerous. But that doesn't mean that something like this is the victim's fault for being stupid. What if the condom broke? What if he pulled a condom off in the middle of sex? (Both of which have happened to me in the past. I was damn lucky to come out of it clean.)
I don't have all the facts, but to me this is the gay equivalent of a man picking a chick up in a bar and beating her senseless when he gets her home; then telling the judge " She shoulda known better than to go home with a guy she just met!".
We're ALL human, no matter how much some of us like to think we aren't. But this man is a human monster in the vein of Gaetan Dugas ( i probably got that spelling wrong since I was 12 when I read "And the Band Played On"; go ahead and rip me to pieces, kids.) and deserves to be shot on sight.
He willfully and knowingly exposed people to a life threatening virus. If he was a straight man spreading anthrax in a straight bar by buying slutty chicks drinks and putting it in the drinks, then he would still be considered a FUCKING TERRORIST.
Maybe god can forgive that type of evil; but as a mere human being I sure as hell can't. Things like this make me believe in the death penalty.
35
So just out of curiosity, do all these people who think he ought to be charged also think we should charge the guy who comes into work with the 'flu and spreads that around?
36
One important difference between a person who knowingly exposes other people to STDs and a woman who tricks a man into getting her pregnant is that, in the latter case, there's a baby who needs care. The baby is an innocent party, and SOMEONE needs to pay to feed and house him or her. I personally prefer to put part of that burden on the father, rather than on the taxpayer.
37
@35- I've heard of flu shots. Is there an HIV vaccine I can get at the drugstore/doctors that I don't know about? Are there people infected by the flu who have to live with it FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES?? I'm also wondering what the statistics are for the deaths of healthy young people killed by flus vs HIV/AIDS. Anybody know? Because to me, your comparison is like apples and avocados. Not even remotely similar.
39
@36 Hmmmmm, maybe if by the burden should be put on the father you mean that he gets full custody then I'd agree but if you're going to trick a guy into getting pregnant (something that was attempted on one of my friends) then you really have no business raising a kid a foster home might very well be the best option.
40
Actually I'd like to modify my statement; I think if you're a boy who takes a girl's word for it that she's on the pill then you're dumb as fuck. When I was posting I was thinking of the woman in Chicago that gave a guy a blowjob, saved the sperm, impregnated herself later, and then tried to hit him up for child support. In a situation like that then I think that the guy has absolutely no financial responsibility whatsoever.
41
Does the man need to be punished? yes. Are those whom he may have infected also responsible? Yes. This is a case(wont hear me say it often), but this is a case where the "victim" is just as much to blame as the accused.
42
That the young man did an egregious thing in exposing his sex partners to HIV is not in question. That the police arrested him on hearsay--a married man and his wife went to the police, the man had sex with the guy and found out later the guy had lied about his hiv status. An unnamed "friend" claimed that the guy had unprotected sex frequently and that she was pretty sure he didn't tell the partners of his hiv status. With that, they arrested the guy, and he incriminated himself in a jail interview on KREM news. (public defender...?) Even if this guy DID have sex with 80 people (that comes from law enforcement, not public health) this is a terribly dangerous precedent. It was way too easy for someone to go to the police with this unproven claim, and for the police to arrest the guy. No one in the story has turned up HIV +.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS