2 Dutch men guilty of injecting 14 with HIV

I'm well aware that such parties happen.They call it 'bug chasing.'

But if you look at these links you will see that these men have been convicted of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm and rape.Does that sound voluntary to you? Most important of all though is the fact that 2 of the men confessed to the crimes.

www.iht.com...
www.iol.co.za...
www.thesun.co.uk...

Originally posted by malignant_tumor

What's "kills" me is that didn't charge them with attempted murder because they consider it a chronic illness and not a fatal one! Maybe not a fatal one if you have the financial means to battle HIV. Considering the financial times that we live in now, I'm sure that is not the case for most.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12-11-2008 by malignant_tumor]

they cannot charge them with attempted murder because scientists still say that HIV does not kill - it just predisposes you to catch bugs that you are unable to fight off

wiki.answers.com...

and the men were not interested in killing these victims - they simply wanted to increase the pool for available sex partners for them to choose from

Gays with HIV find that they dont get much choice in sex partners as the non-infected dont want to have sex with them. I heard this same scenario happen elsewhere in the world too

the sad part is that some of these men at this sex party were likley to be bi-sexual so that would also mean the wife would become infected

and a lot of gays do engage in very anonymous quick sex - public toilets are a favorite of theirs. a hole drilled between toilet cubicles serves as a way to get annonymous fellatio - that sort of thing

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by malignant_tumor

 

Kinda makes you wonder what those "innocent" people where doing at a sex party

yer kidding right? You actually think going to a sex party makes these people not innocent?

Wow... just wow...

Originally posted by jakyll
I'm well aware that such parties happen.They call it 'bug chasing.'

But if you look at these links you will see that these men have been convicted of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm and rape.Does that sound voluntary to you? Most important of all though is the fact that 2 of the men confessed to the crimes.

www.iht.com...
www.iol.co.za...
www.thesun.co.uk...

I could understand that if you're only source of info is these articles then you could come to such a conclusion but it is not that clear cut.

Prosecutors initially claimed that the suspect(s) deliberately infected 11 people with HIV.....this was dismissed by the court and the suspects were cleared of these charges.
second claim by prosecutors was that the suspect(s) abused 14 people while being in drowsy condition. Only three of claims were proven.

Don't get me wrong here, i'm not sympathizing with these people but......

two years prior to this case these parties and what was don there were known by police and other officials. But given the fact this took place within the confinment of there own home they could not do anything about it. Only thing the could do was warning people of these parties. And they did. Everybody still attending these parties knew the were having unprotected sex with HIV infected men. (and that is a big point here, the whole idea of these parties was having unprotected sex)

So we can set aside the whole HIV injection part b'cause they were not convicted of this. What remains is the fact that 3 people "believe" they got raped, but ask yourself , if you attended a party where everybody was having sex with eachother AND everybody was using drugs you should atleast be aware of the fact that if you didn't want to have sex you were in the wrong place.

It's not like the picked people of the street. These victims al knew what they were getting themselfs into. It's not the kind of rape we know where innocent girl get attacked while walking home etc. These men attended parties where they knew they would be having sex and using drugs. If you somehow pass out at such a party b'cause of to much drug use do you think those other men are clear of mind enough to lay you aside and continue with the rest who are still standing on there feet....that's just naive.

But media is making this out to be bigger then it is when it's even being spoken of here on ATS.

Let's continue with aliens and Obama 'cause this is not worth the effort

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by malignant_tumor

 

Kinda makes you wonder what those "innocent" people where doing at a sex party

yer kidding right? You actually think going to a sex party makes these people not innocent?

Wow... just wow...

If the intent of these men is having unprotected sex then they are not to innocent in my book ,no

Going to parties is nothing wrong with that but not taking your responsibility is very very very wrong...

once more (dutch numbers) 40 % of gay men who don't know if they are HIV positive and 80% of gay men who know they are HIV positive have unprotected sex.

knowing these numbers and yet still have unprotected sex is not innocent..

you beg to differ...

It was just a party...............
Yep.
It's all fun and games till somebody loses an immune system.

No matter how stupid and irresponsible it is for the victims to have ended up unconcious at a sex party where others can use them however they want. It was attempted murder -aggravated.

Originally posted by badgerprints
It was just a party...............
Yep.
It's all fun and games till somebody loses an immune system.

No matter how stupid and irresponsible it is for the victims to have ended up unconcious at a sex party where others can use them however they want. It was attempted murder -aggravated.

Attempted murder my a**.

Attempted rape at best my friend. The murder part ( i guess you mean ending up with HIV) is something the victim agreed to.

on a side note : It's all fun and games till somebody loses an immune system.

So, after all this debating,

What if this happened in th U.S.A.?

What would happen in a world where healthcare isn't paid for?

[edit on 13-11-2008 by malignant_tumor]

reply to post by malignant_tumor


I guess you'de be f**ked....(get it )

But seriously that's exactly my point. These "innocent" victims are not so innocent if you ask me.
How the h**l can people not care about this. Overhere we have healthcare and your medicine is paid for ,so who cares

People should be using protection all the time. Hiv is a global problem and it doesn't stop at your nations border. These people who willing take risks should realise that they are putting other people at danger.

It's a fact we cannot put a law to this and we have to work together to solve this problem

reply to post by operation mindcrime

It's not like the picked people of the street. These victims al knew what they were getting themselfs into. It's not the kind of rape we know where innocent girl get attacked while walking home etc. These men attended parties where they knew they would be having sex and using drugs. If you somehow pass out at such a party b'cause of to much drug use do you think those other men are clear of mind enough to lay you aside and continue with the rest who are still standing on there feet....that's just naive.

Wow!

Thats an amazing attitude you have there.

Rape is rape is rape.
It doesn't matter where it happens.

And attending a sex party means consensual sex.Rape is not consensual.
Passing out at a college party,were lots of sex usually takes place,does not give anyone the right to have sex with that person.That is rape because that person has not agreed.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

It's not like the picked people of the street. These victims al knew what they were getting themselfs into. It's not the kind of rape we know where innocent girl get attacked while walking home etc. These men attended parties where they knew they would be having sex and using drugs. If you somehow pass out at such a party b'cause of to much drug use do you think those other men are clear of mind enough to lay you aside and continue with the rest who are still standing on there feet....that's just naive.

Wow!

Thats an amazing attitude you have there.

Rape is rape is rape.
It doesn't matter where it happens.

And attending a sex party means consensual sex.Rape is not consensual.
Passing out at a college party,were lots of sex usually takes place,does not give anyone the right to have sex with that person.That is rape because that person has not agreed.

Thanks, i know i have an amazing attitude but.....

I do believe you are not getting the point here. You are comparing college parties with bareback parties. And maybe "party" isn't the right choise of words here but these are not parties where there is a whole lot of music or dancing going on. No socialising, just 8, 10 ,15 horny men locking themselfs up in a livingroom ,getting butt naked ,doing a whole lotta drugs and f**k each other.
If you volentarly put your self in such a dangerous situation (and don't forget these are bareback-parties, with the only goal is to have UNPROTECTED sex with as many men) you are partially to blame.
The ONLY reason for these people to come to such a party is to have sex. What do you think the other people in the room expect that you are there for.
And don't forget these people are running on acid themselfs. These are not the best of people to do any judging themselfs.
It's kinda like playing with wild animals. It's all un until something goes wrong and they shoot the animal. But what is a person doing playing around with wild animals in the first place....
If you cannot firgure out you are running a high risk then f**k it, it's your own damn............(maybe you ca fill in the rest... :mad

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Just because because choose to run a "high risk" life style, doesn't mean that give up their legal rights of protection under the law and rights as a human being.

Originally posted by malignant_tumor
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

Just because because choose to run a "high risk" life style, doesn't mean that give up their legal rights of protection under the law and rights as a human being.

Yeah that's a funny one "legal rights of PROTECTION" , don't see the irony.....

But allow me to go out on a limp here and ask you a really personal question :

Suppose (just suppose) you where looking for sex. No intimacy or romance just sex. You start browsing the internet and find a couple of guys who are organising a bareback "party" at there house.
You don't know these people but b'cause you really want to try it you arrange a date. (So you aggreed upon having sex with these men on for hand)
They tell you that they like to use drugs b'cause that intensifies the expience and you should to.....it's a date
You meet at the given time and after using the drugs you pass out in a room with 10 horny men ,with no clothes on , with whom you agree to have sex. These people are not able to make clear judgment themselfs b'cause of the drugs......
Now here the big question......(drumrolls....)
Are you gonna be that f**king amazed when you wake up that somebody may have taken advantage of you.....

If the answer is YES then you are dangerously naive.

It's there own damn fould and and if these people aren't any smarter then to bad.........

I give the ball back to you, sir.

Making bad decisions is not deserving of being raped.

Originally posted by malignant_tumor
Making bad decisions is not deserving of being raped.

absolutly....and.....

Crossing a five lane highway with your eyes closed doesn't mean you DESERVE to get run over by a car but changes are pretty big that you will.....
People die every day from making bad dicisions. That's why we life and learn and for the ones who fell....thanks for the lesson we will not try that.

It's called natural selection......but that a completly different subject.

Listen ,it wasn't a split second decision these men took. They could at any point have realised that what they were doing might be dangeous. But when things go bad we should feel sorry...???

Sorry, i don't

Going skydiving with no parachute doesn't mean you deserve to fall to certain death but it happens, believe me

on a side note: It's not that i'm some kind of pro-rapist activist here and you wouldn't say it but i'm generally very nice and have a sunny disposition but i'm just fed up with people who complain about the consequences of there actions. If not themself, who is responeble for their stupidity...

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by malignant_tumor

 

Kinda makes you wonder what those "innocent" people where doing at a sex party

yer kidding right? You actually think going to a sex party makes these people not innocent?

Wow... just wow...

If the intent of these men is having unprotected sex then they are not to innocent in my book ,no

Going to parties is nothing wrong with that but not taking your responsibility is very very very wrong...

once more (dutch numbers) 40 % of gay men who don't know if they are HIV positive and 80% of gay men who know they are HIV positive have unprotected sex.

knowing these numbers and yet still have unprotected sex is not innocent..

you beg to differ...

Dude... (or dudette) Their intent was to go to a Sex Party... not to get injected with HIV once they were in a semi-conscious state...


once again.. how does this make them not innocent?

Where did you get the "unprotected sex" part?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by malignant_tumor

 

Kinda makes you wonder what those "innocent" people where doing at a sex party

yer kidding right? You actually think going to a sex party makes these people not innocent?

Wow... just wow...

If the intent of these men is having unprotected sex then they are not to innocent in my book ,no

Going to parties is nothing wrong with that but not taking your responsibility is very very very wrong...

once more (dutch numbers) 40 % of gay men who don't know if they are HIV positive and 80% of gay men who know they are HIV positive have unprotected sex.

knowing these numbers and yet still have unprotected sex is not innocent..

you beg to differ...

Dude... (or dudette) Their intent was to go to a Sex Party... not to get injected with HIV once they were in a semi-conscious state...


once again.. how does this make them not innocent?

Where did you get the "unprotected sex" part?

What the H**L do you thin "bareback" means.....????

first read up en.wikipedia.org...(sex)

then we'll talk

We are NOT calling into question the behavior of certain individuals who attend such parties (note the word "attend" not "host". We're not calling into question their moral fibre, their sexual preference, or even their hair color. We're talking about Men, who attended a Party and were infected with HIV. HOW and WHY they got infected is what we need to figure out.

We can't speculate and pretend to know what these men thought they were getting into, or what they didn't for that matter. There are some questions that we need to ask first about the said party, before making any further judgements.

1 - Did the men attend the party, knowing there would be people with HIV having unprotected sex with each other

2 - Did the men come to the party, unknowing that HIV infected people would be at this party
3 - Was HIV injected

4 - Was HIV transmitted throught sex

5 - Did the men consent to sex

6 - Did the men consent to taking drugs

7 - Did the men consent, to having sex with HIV infected people, based on the knowledge in number 1

No doubt, that if 1 is true, in conuction with 7 - we can concede that they are not "victims" of HIV but were instead, willing participants and they should accept responsibility for the path they have now chosen for their lives.

If 2 or 3 - and 4,5 & 6 are true - then these men are victims. They attended a sex party, and were not informed that there would be HIV infected people having unprotected sex. They consented to Drugs. They consented to sex. They did not consent to being infected with HIV.

Just some thoughts...

- Carrot


[edit on 11/13/2008 by CA_Orot]

Originally posted by CA_Orot
We are NOT calling into question the behavior of certain individuals who attend such parties (note the word "attend" not "host". We're not calling into question their moral fibre, their sexual preference, or even their hair color. We're talking about Men, who attended a Party and were infected with HIV. HOW and WHY they got infected is what we need to figure out.

We can't speculate and pretend to know what these men thought they were getting into, or what they didn't for that matter. There are some questions that we need to ask first about the said party, before making any further judgements.

1 - Did the men attend the party, knowing there would be people with HIV having unprotected sex with each other

2 - Did the men come to the party, unknowing that HIV infected people would be at this party
3 - Was HIV injected

4 - Was HIV transmitted throught sex

5 - Did the men consent to sex

6 - Did the men consent to taking drugs

7 - Did the men consent, to having sex with HIV infected people, based on the knowledge in number 1

No doubt, that if 1 is true, in conuction with 7 - we can concede that they are not "victims" of HIV but were instead, willing participants and they should accept responsibility for the path they have now chosen for their lives.

If 2 or 3 - and 4,5 & 6 are true - then these men are victims. They attended a sex party, and were not informed that there would be HIV infected people having unprotected sex. They consented to Drugs. They consented to sex. They did not consent to being infected with HIV.

Just some thoughts...

- Carrot


[edit on 11/13/2008 by CA_Orot]

CA_Orot,

As i am from Holland (where this all took place) and i have been following this case for about 1,5 years now i can tell you that none of the things i said are speculations.

The name of this post isn,t even corect 'cause "2 Dutch men guilty of injecting 14 with HIV " should read " 2 Dutch men guilty of raping 3 men"

Yesterday the long awaited closing of this case turned into a 9 years sentence and a 5 year sentence for two men who were found guilty of raping three men. The rest of the charges were dropped.

To answer your questions :

1. that is in fact the whole idea of a "bareback" party see this link
en.wikipedia.org...(sex)
2. if you are practising unsafe sex with complete strangers it would be dumb to assume they didn't have HIV (correct???)
3. Part of the ritual was indeed the injecting of HIV blood. Wether this was done without there consent was not proven.
4. that is something not even scientist can tell. It has to do with wether or not blood was transmitted during intercourse
5. It was the soul reason for attending this party
6. apart from the GHB (it is unclear, some did some didn't)al other drugs were used out of free will by all participant
7. see reason 1

If you want i could give you some links to articles about this case but they are all in dutch so i would need to translate them.

Now my question to you:

You state that "They attended a sex party, and were not informed that there would be HIV infected people having unprotected sex. They consented to Drugs. They consented to sex. They did not consent to being infected with HIV."

Is having unprotected sex with a complete stranger not the same as consending to being infected with HIV??? wether you do or don't know they have or haven't got HIV.....

I personally believe there is enough sorrow in the world ,lets STOP AIDS NOW!!!!!!!!

www.stopaids.org...



[edit on 13/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Sorry for all the spelling errors, english is not my first language

[edit on 13/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
Is having unprotected sex with a complete stranger not the same as consending to being infected with HIV??? wether you do or don't know they have or haven't got HIV.....

No, it's not the same. It's just ignorance of decision making. Or just lack of the education and knowledge of how to contract the disease. Doesn't mean that they said it was ok.

Just because a child doesn't know what would happen if they stuck a butter knife in a electrical socket...

...Does that mean that the child deserves or conscented to being electricuded?