1472
1473

Rapist ‘distressed’ to learn victim had HIV (sunshinecoastdaily.com.au)

yulia1895 が 投稿

全 193 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]fadedone 63ポイント64ポイント  (0子コメント)

He was probably trying to stop him because he had HIV but the guy kept fucking him. That's my guess.

[–]awkface 641ポイント642ポイント  (140子コメント)

While I have no sympathy for the guy for not stopping when told to do so, given that it began as a consensual encounter, I think the victim is a dick for not disclosing his status initially. Charge the rapist for rape. Charge the victim for knowlingly exposing a (consensual at the time) partner to HIV without their knowledge and consent. That's a felony in the US last I checked, not sure how Australia handles that sort of thing.

edit: Ahh, yes, that's right. Downvote me for not being completely on the side of the victim. He's a piece of shit too y'know, rape victim or not.

[–]YearOfTheChipmunk 178ポイント179ポイント  (59子コメント)

From the article:

Phillip Donald Jason's first sexual encounter with another man started off as consensual sex but led to him "crossing a line" and being charged with rape, Brisbane District Court heard.

The victim asked him to stop, but he did not stop straight away.

Later, after being arrested, Jason, 48, was told his victim was HIV positive.

Even the Judge of the case agrees with what you said.

But Judge Kingham said this was not relevant.

"It's a consequence of him consensually engaging in unprotected sex," she said.

So yeah, you're right. If that "line" hadn't been crossed, he'd have been exposed regardless. Pretty shitty thing to do to sleep with someone without giving any indication that they were positive.

Obviously this doesn't mean he deserved to be raped or anything, but there's always more to the story than the title says.

[–]CollinsCouldveDucked 124ポイント125ポイント  (42子コメント)

Have we considered that the HIV was the reason for wanting it to stop?

[–]eyemadeanaccount 57ポイント58ポイント  (18子コメント)

Exactly, like maybe he was fine jerking off or sucking off the other guy without exposing him to anything, but then the other guy wanted more and forced himself on him.

[–]FtKickass 39ポイント40ポイント  (17子コメント)

That could potentially still expose him to the virus.

[–]fotolyfe 5ポイント6ポイント  (16子コメント)

Remotely, possibly. Not likely unless they were somehow doing blood play.

[–]FtKickass 16ポイント17ポイント  (15子コメント)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/riskbehaviors/oralsex.html hmm ok so since its not as likely via oral that means its not relevant, gotcha

[–]rzezzy1 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's much more difficult to contract HIV receiving oral than giving it, unless the infected giver has an open and bleeding cut in their mouth. Maybe the soon-to-be victim was giving oral, which doesn't carry a significant risk of exposure?

[–]FtKickass 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

The point remains that there was a risk of exposure to the virus. The victim in this case still did not inform the other man of the fact that he was HIV positive. If there is any risk you are responsible for telling your sex partners that information regardless since the encounter started out as consensual.

[–]no_dice_grandma [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Lets say you're sucking off some guy. You take a mouthful.

"I have AIDS."

You're telling me you aren't upset? You aren't racking your brain to remember the last time you bit your tongue or the inside of your cheek? You aren't going to go get tested?

[–]Sarlax [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Totally, it's like shooting only one bullet at someone rather than emptying an entire clip. The odds of hitting someone when you only fire one bullet are lower, so definitely not a big deal!

[–]dogninja8 28ポイント29ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maybe the stopping point (when consent was withdrawn) was before penetration when he was going to tell him. Maybe it wasn't and they both did something wrong.

[–]LurkAddict 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. "First sexual encounter" does not always mean penetration. Consent may have been withdrawn because the victim did not want it to go far enough that he would have to disclose his condition.

[–]YearOfTheChipmunk 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, we should try to keep an open mind about things. I was just trying to say keep an open mind about it. Because the comment I replied to was downvoted when I first wrote my comment.

[–]Sliver59 21ポイント22ポイント  (8子コメント)

I honestly think the victim here should be prosecuted as well for knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent. That is an absolutely terrible thing to do to someone, and considering the encounter started out consensually that is something that should have been brought up. If that line hadn't been crossed or if he had stopped when asked to, that still would have been six months of hell waiting to know if he had been infected or not after he found out. And despite significant advances in HIV management and treatment and the ability we have to delay progression into AIDS, it's still going to get there eventually.

[–]masnosreme 24ポイント25ポイント  (3子コメント)

I honestly think the victim here should be prosecuted as well for knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent.

That's entirely dependent on what actually happened during the encounter. The article doesn't go into any detail on what happened, so unless you have further information about the incident, your assertion is unfounded.

[–]BrobearBerbil [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

This is the right response. There's not enough information for getting on a high horse.

[–]Xelif [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Someone mentioned rape; that's enough information for reddit to blame the victim.

[–]YearOfTheChipmunk 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

If it didn't escalate and the police didn't get involved, he might not have ever even found out.

Later, after being arrested, Jason, 48, was told his victim was HIV positive.

Seems like the police or someone similar are who told him.

[–]sir_logicalot 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Both of the comments above you just said the exact same damn thing.

Is this comment of yours part of some retarded in-joke on reddit that I'm not aware of?

[–]tashasghost [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If you are hanging at your house, giving someone a hand job, you aren't exposing someone to HIV without their consent. .... just because they were having a 'consensual sexual encounter' at first doesn't mean they were planning to have sex... they could have been making out (which doesnt give you HIV)

[–]Servingclass [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're gross.

[–]thefisherman1961 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Obviously this doesn't mean he deserved to be raped or anything

If you engage in consensual sexual activity with another human being and intentionally hide the fact that you have HIV, that's hardly any different than attempted murder. You deserve whatever sort of violence comes your way from your victim.

[–]BrobearBerbil 98ポイント99ポイント  (22子コメント)

I don't think you understand gay hookups. A lot of times you don't have intercourse or riskier sex at all. When I read this, I see a victim that didn't expect penetration at all and was just planning on oral and stuff that's not as risky. It's still wrong to not mention HIV at that point, but the victim probably wasn't planning on a guy forcing his way into him. Protesting about that is halfway to disclosure. Still not sure why he didn't use his status to get the guy to stop.

Either way, I'm seeing a lot of assumption here that a consensual gay hookup includes anal intercourse and that's only the case part of the time and is discussed beforehand. If a guy agrees to meet for handies and beejes, it's definitely not okay to just stick it in.

EDIT: Not saying that blowjobs are zero risk with someone who has HIV. I would be very critical of anyone who invites someone to fool around without disclosing their status. I just think it changes the tone of the situation if straight men understand that consenting to penetration is very much a different thing than consenting to sex for gay men. In the straight world, these things are more intertwined. In the gay world, they're very separated.

[–]queerleaderr 33ポイント34ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed! I don't think the victim expected penetration, at least not bareback. The fact that the sex was unprotected at all makes me think that there was NO consent given for PENETRATION, only for other miscellaneous acts (handjobs, blowjobs, etc.), considering how scary bareback sex can be in the gay community. As far as using his status for mercy with his rapist, HIV is still a very touchy subject. You don't want to just tell the whole world you're HIV positive, especially not someone who's FORCEFULLY having sex with you after your consent is withdrawn, and ESPECIALLY when that would make the rapist even more angry. Who knows what he'd do then. He's already using force over the victim as it is, why would the victim feel safe telling him that he might have just contracted HIV from doing so? All I see happening there is an already-heated rapist becoming livid. I, too, would've waited for police protection before breaking the news to the guy. But I would've done everything I could to stop the penetration without making the situation worse, which is what it sounds like he did.

This is how I see it playing out when I read this article; two men meet up, they both want to hookup. One wants penetration, and the other is only expecting blowjobs and such. Had he known he was going to be penetrated, I believe he would've insisted that protection was used. Nobody likes to give someone they LIKE HIV. However, once consent was withdrawn for penetration, the victim felt trapped in the situation and informing his rapist would (most likely) put him in more danger. So he waited until he felt safe to inform the other guy.

It makes sense to me. However, not all details were given, so I'm just connecting the dots in regards to how I'M reading the article. The victim should still have disclosed his condition EARLIER than the point of ANY physical activity; I believe being HIV positive is a thing that should be disclosed to anyone you're interested in getting involved with romantically from the get-go. However, in this situation, intent is everything. From what I can infer, the victim had no intention of purposefully infecting the rapist. From what I can infer, the rapist did have intention of having intercourse with his victim, no matter what. It could have been handled better, yes. But when you decide to stick your dick in somebody's body without consent, you accept whatever risks come with that.

Again, this is just how I read the article. I'm in no way saying THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED. I'm just saying, don't discount this scenario! It is possible the victim had intent to infect, however it is also possible that he just got caught in a bad spot and didn't have many options. There is a lot of grey area here, but this is one way I see it playing out in my head.

[–]BrobearBerbil 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

The victim could have also been on Prep with some undetectable levels, which some guys are starting to rationalize lighter fooling around without telling people. I'm not okay with that, but I could see that being more the mindset of this guy. Also, that could explain why he didn't just announce his status the moment things forceful.

[–]joshm60 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Either way, I'm seeing a lot of assumption here that a consensual gay hookup includes anal intercourse and that's only the case part of the time and is discussed beforehand. If a guy agrees to meet for handies and beejes, it's definitely not okay to just stick it in.

It is noteworthy that roughly 40% of gay men have never had anal sex before, yet straight people tend to assume that anal sex is the default for gays. In fact, according to one source, anal sex is the least common form of sex that gay men engage in:

The results: Despite the popular perception, "sexual behaviors involving the anus were least common," researchers found. Around 75 percent of participants reported kissing their partners, giving oral sex, and/or receiving oral sex in their most recent sexual encounters. By contrast, only 36 percent of men reporting receiving anal sex and 34 percent of men reporting giving it. Half of participants who engaged in anal sex employed a condom. The most common series of activities in the encounter—reported by 16 percent of men—involved "holding their partner romantically, kissing partner on mouth, solo masturbation, masturbating partner, masturbation by partner, and genital–genital contact."

[–]ILikeNeurons [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The most common series of activities in the encounter—reported by 16 percent of men—involved "holding their partner romantically, kissing partner on mouth, solo masturbation, masturbating partner, masturbation by partner, and genital–genital contact."

Amazing how many of those put a potential partner at 0 risk of infection. This case ought to be held up as yet another reason to respect your partner's sexual boundaries--they could have AIDS.

[–]thipp 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've never thought about this before, but can HIV actually transmit anally to the giver if it's only one-way?

[–]masorick 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes. Being the insertive partner during anal intercourse is riskier than being the receptive partner during vaginal intercourse.

[–]thipp 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm a hetero guy, but for all that matters I might be gay. I should have been taught this at some point in my life.

[–]Skrapion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Is it really such an oversight? I don't need to know whether it's worse to spend a storm swimming in an ocean or playing on a golf course, so long as I know they're both irresponsibly dangerous.

[–]holysmiter 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Sucking down a load of hiv sperm is fucking risky.

[–]rzezzy1 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

But having HIV and sucking someone who doesn't have it isn't risky nearly as risky.

Edited because of unintentionally misleading wording

[–]monkey_man_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm skeptical. You got something to back that claim up?

[–]rzezzy1 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

"Receiving fellatio, giving or receiving cunnilingus, and giving or receiving anilingus carry little to no risk."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/riskbehaviors/oralsex.html

In the first paragraph after the "fast facts" box. I'll admit, though, that I referenced the source after the fact and made the claim based on my own reasoning, which isn't always fully reliable.

[–]BrobearBerbil 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think "sucking down loads" of strangers is very common for this exact reason. Letting someone release in your mouth without knowing their status would be foolish.

[–]thebestdaysofmyflerm 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Still not sure why he didn't use his status to get the guy to stop.

This almost certainly would have enraged the rapist, putting the victim in even greater danger. I'd be terrified to mention my status were I HIV+ and in this situation.

[–]BrobearBerbil [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is a good point. The 48-year-old, first-timer that jumps to rape the moment he doesn't get what he wants is pretty mental for sure.

[–]Skrapion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Especially considering the rapist "had a significant criminal history and had spent a lot of time in jail."

[–]monkey_man_ -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

What planet do you live on where you can't get AIDS from a blow job?

[–]reallytrulyboring [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What? Oral sex is pretty low-risk when it comes to transmitting HIV.

[–]DotishGuy 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

WHAT IF, the reason for asking him to stop, was because he had aids

[–]Kimyas 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Aids is not the same as hiv. Aids is the result of hiv.

[–]SayceGards 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

untreated HIV

[–]Byzantine279 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even treated HIV can eventually deteriorate into AIDS.

[–]thecritic06 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're making flagrant assumptions about the victim. If a person is being treated for HIV and sticking to their treatment regimen, their cell count can be reduced to undetectable and untransmitable levels. You're also making assumptions about the nature of the sex and the rape. I was having sex with someone once where I consented to sex with a condom and they removed it and tried to continue without. That was a violation of my consent and I could've escalated that legally and gotten the prick sentenced. It's perfectly possible that the case in the article was similar, though from the sound of the assault charge also more violent. If I had HIV and was going to consent only to sex with condoms and/or was on treatment and was not at all infectious, I probably wouldn't mention it to a one night stand either, because guess what, people jump to prejudiced conclusions and want nothing to do with you despite there being no chance of infection.

[–]bryanrobh 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well think about this. Maybe they were getting into to the physical activity and the HIV+ dude was getting ready to disclose the info before the sex but before he could the rapist lost it and started to go to town on that ass. At that point HIV+ was no longer consenting and there is where the "rape" happens. But at that point if I am HIV+ and someone rapes me well I wouldnt say anything either.

[–]masorick 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

What if the victim withdrew his consent because the rapist refused to put a condom on?
We really have no information on how it went down.

[–]_Pornosonic_ 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

THis is reddit. THere is no gray area here. You are either 100% good or 100% evil.

[–]smell_my_thoughts 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are you fucking kidding me. Don't want stds? Don't rape someone.

[–]Servingclass [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

So many reddit users will defend rape to the death. Get used to it.

[–]smell_my_thoughts [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I won't get used to it. I'll continue to call people on their bullshit because it's disgusting

[–]thebestdaysofmyflerm 9ポイント10ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not all sexual acts can transmit HIV. For example, if the victim had planned to only give oral, he could not have transferred HIV and thus his status was irrelevant.

edit: According to UCSF, "There are no known cases of someone getting HIV from receiving oral sex."

source: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/hiv?page=basics-00-08

[–]awkface 20ポイント21ポイント  (4子コメント)

Actually, it is possible to spread HIV orally. The chances of it are generally considered minimal to nearly null seeing as the mouth doesn't usually contain a direct method of entry into the bloodstream...but if you happen to have an open wound in your mouth (canker sore, bit your cheek, etc), it can be transmitted. I personally wouldn't go down on someone without knowing their status, and as far as I know, the law regarding disclosure of status to partners doesn't exempt blowjobs.

[–]chirisu 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

Check the CDC chart on HIV transmission: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

Notice that they have actual numbers for most types of sex. But oral sex is just "low." Less than 1/10,000 (.01%) chance that you can contract HIV from oral sex.

You're right that having an open sore of some sort increases your chances, but assuming a relatively healthy mouth, the chances are so close to zero.

[–]thebestdaysofmyflerm -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can transmit HIV by receiving oral, but not by giving it. I was suggesting the latter might have been the plan.

[–]almightySapling 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm with you. We can't say the rape victim was in any way wrong because we don't know what information he might have given. We also don't know how "far" they made it before he withdrew his consent. Maybe they were just kissing? Who knows. All we know is that he withdrew consent to sex prior to sex happening. That he was HIV+ becomes a irrelevant at exactly that time. Had he allowed the sex to continue into an area at risk for transmission, then I would say there's a problem. But that did not happen.

[–]mikepictor [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

he could not have transferred HIV

Yes he could....but it's a lot less likely. Have you ever bled when flossing? Have you ever had a sore in your mouth, or bitten your cheek that it bleeds?

Oral sex still has a transmission risk, but it is much lower.

[–]thebestdaysofmyflerm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

From the University of California's website about HIV: "There are no known cases of someone getting HIV from receiving oral sex (being licked or sucked)."

So while it might technically be possible, I would say the risk is negligible for receiving oral (though giving oral is a different story).

source: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/hiv?page=basics-00-08

[–]falicor 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why the fuck would he tell him if he wasn't going to have sex with him?

[–]tashasghost [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why would you have to tell someone you have HIV when you don't plan to do anything with them. He shouldn't have told him ahead of time because he wasn't expecting to be RAPED

[–]barbadosslim [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

what

[–]sarcasmplease [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I have to agree with you. I feel bad for the guy who was raped but think he is a jerk for not disclosing his HIV status before having sex.

[–]Servingclass [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Dude. A guy was RAPED. do you think while his rapist was forcibly penetrating him he thought to stop and give that information? How divorced from the horror of rape are you that you'd think this was possible?

[–]Marnir [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

ITT: People that doesn't know about HIV transmissions. If the guy was on medication then the risk of infection is VERY low. I have heard doctors saying that they would have unprotected sex with their SO:s if they had HIV and was on medication, it is that safe.

And also, wtf dude, how does not disclosing your medical conditions make it right for someone to rape you?

[–]lunch_eater75 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If the guy was on medication then the risk of infection is VERY low.

Very low isn't zero. If there is ANY chance that's something I would want to know.

And also, wtf dude, how does not disclosing your medical conditions make it right for someone to rape you?

Yea that's not what was said....at all. It was pointing out not telling someone you have HIV is a shitty thing to do. This started as a consensual act, now we have idea what exactly that means (Hands, oral, full on sex, etc). So in this instance the two men may have been consenually having sex at first. Then guy 1 says stop (totally his right) guy 2 doesn't. If that is what happened guy 2 is shitty person because he is a rapist. Guy 1 isn't so awesome either b/c he engaged in consensual sex without telling his partner his condition.

But none of use here know the details of what exactly took place so this entire thread is conjecture.

[–]heilspawn -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are degrees to consensuality you know.

[–]Doctor_Blackjack -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think knowingly spreading HIV is an attempted murder charge no less.

[–]callipygian1 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

a victim owes a rapist absolutely zero duty of disclosure. that's one reason why you don't rape people, mmmkay?

[–]SueyPork [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

They started with consensual sex and the HIV positive one didn't disclose at that point, according to the article. He should be charged with intentionally spreading a deadly disease.

[–]Doctor_Blackjack 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well yeah its not like the victim can just blurt out by the way I have AIDS but this started as a consensual sexual encounter, which means this person had every intention of knowingly spreading the disease.

Knowingly spreading aids is tantamount to killing whoever you had sex with.

[–]tashasghost [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

consensual sexual encounter doesn't mean sex. He could have been giving the guy a hand job.

[–]theredskittles 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's more tantamount to potentially making them take a pill every day. But yes, it's bad and you shouldn't do it. However, for all we know the victim was giving a handjob, or taking retrovirals that literally reduce your viral load to undetectable levels.

Yes, he would have needed to tell his then-partner about his status before consenting to intercourse. But you don't need to tell everyone you're NOT planning to engage in HIV transmittable activities with

[–]Doctor_Blackjack [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The story is clear, it began as a consensual encounter, they were going to have sex then it became a rape.

He did not at any point disclose his status.

[–]theredskittles [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Right, but he tried to stop the rapist before having sex. Possibly because of his status, we don't know

[–]GuyAboveIsStupid -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're the top comment by like 400+ points, I think you'll survive

[–]orgpekoe -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

agreed

[–]Jsch2384 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who's down voting you? You're at over 300 up votes and you should be, because you are spot on correct.

[–]Jellyman_04 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think it is a crime for someone to not disclose. It brings in a lot of issues if someone doesn't know they have it and then pass it on accidentally.

[–]Wandering_Seoul [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

100% agree with you. Idiots will downvote anything they don't understand or refuse to read really...

[–]NahNotOnReddit [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

::Dre voice:: Ain't you ever see that one movie, K.I.D.S.?

[–]kokberg 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

jesus, they say you can't trust a man with two first names. this bastard has 3!

[–]igiveupordownvotes 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

I can't believe he only got 2.5 years. That's crazy.

[–]tresser 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

i know you can't trust someone with a first name for a last name, but 3 first names for his full name?

dodgey as fuck

[–]H0ck3yal 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Karma's a bitch ain't it.

[–]and_one_more_thing -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tell that to his next rape victim.

[–]DaGrazzles 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think of it as instant bad karma on the rapist person. So it's pretty hilarious to me.

[–]the-philosophisor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Damn, that 'sucks'.

[–]Willwrestle4food [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Like that movie Kids.

[–]tashasghost [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People think 'sexual encounter' means that this guy was GOING to have sex.... it could have been a hand job...

[–]tcoop6231 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Jason pleaded guilty to rape, stealing and common assault from the incident that occurred in June last year in Brisbane.

Judge Kingham said this rape charge was different to others because in this case the sex was consensual at first and that the consent was then withdrawn.

She also said he had a significant criminal history and had spent a lot of time in jail.

This was his first offence of a sexual nature, she said.

Judge Kingham said Jason had already spent about eight months in custody for these offences, because he had been refused bail.

She sentenced him to two and a half years jail and said he would be immediately eligible for parole.

A parole board will determine whether Jason should remain behind bars or be released with strict conditions.

The HIV part isn't even the most disturbing part of this case.

  1. A rapist, thief and assaulter only gets 2.5 years in jail?

  2. A man with a lengthy criminal history is immediately eligible for parol?

  3. He was refused bail for being a danger to society and they want to parole him immediately?

  4. His criminal history is escalating into sexual crimes and this isn't a huge red flag?

WTF??

This guy needs to be locked up for a very long time...

[–]Steampunk_Moustache [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Jail them both.

[–]momchillpls -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Raped by.. Karma.

[–]VaginalBurp -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you take out all of the awful awful awful feelings in the title and read it with complete unbiased. COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL!

That would, indeed, be very distressing for a rapist.

[–]TheAdmiralCrunch -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That sounds pretty goddamn distressing.

But it's hard to be sympathetic.

[–]papasouzas [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

/r/JusticePorn

[–]Booshanky -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Aww, poor rapist.

[–]Weezull 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Odd headline. I'd be distressed to learn that I might have contracted HIV regardless of the method of transmission.

[–]Untjosh1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You just can't go rape like you used to.

[–]grunglebear -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jason pleaded guilty to rape, stealing and common assault from the incident that occurred in June last year in Brisbane.

She sentenced him to two and a half years jail and said he would be immediately eligible for parole.

Hear that, mates? Come down under for all your down under needs.

[–]Capetorial [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

How the hell can you prove consent was withdrawn? Look, rapists are bad - no one's questioning that. I'm not here to defend rapists, only the innocent.

Now how the fuck do you prove it's rape, especially when it 'started off' consensual?

[–]tashasghost [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He admitted to it... also to stealing and assault.. So I guess you're making out, then you say 'no sorry don't want to have sex' and someone punches you in the face and rapes you, then steals your shit after.... just because it 'starts off' consensual doesn't mean you can just do ANYTHING you want to the person you're with T_T

[–]eqleriq -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

This visualization of "distressed" is closer to sarcasm than a no-shit...

Who wouldn't be?

[–]startingfresh1 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, well, fuck them.

[–]verafides -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I like the scare quotes there. It means the person who typed it is outraged about the distress aspect. Inappropriate injection of opinion into a headline. Boo!

[–]DrClaudeLedbetter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe it's a direct quote. "Mr. Rapist, how do you feel about the fact that your victim was HIV positive?" "I feel distressed."

[–]Servingclass [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Are you fucking illiterate? It says in the article that he said that. Go back to school.

[–]mightbetellinglies [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

His victim got an unwanted steaming hot beefy man gravy injection in the anus!

[–]Trucks_N_Chainsaws -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

They deserve each other. I hope they become cellmates.

[–]Kongsley [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Seems he HAD IT COMING!!!

[–]Jerronc -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8rHHRdGZog what this aritcal reminded me of.

[–]StruckingFuggle -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Awfully light prison sentence for him ... ... At least he's potentially also contracted HIV, so he'll be stuck with that for the rest of his life.

Still ... Too bad jail is the only sentence for him, situations like this call for branding, and possibly legally barring him from seeking medical treatment for HIV.

[–]SteveLithops [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Wouldn't branding him and preventing him from treatment be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

[–]StruckingFuggle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If it were in America, preventing him from treatment, maybe. But it's not, and I don't know their statutes. But it would be a hard case to make when we consider things like the gas chamber, lethal interjection, hanging, and the electric chair to be not cruel punishments.

As for a brand, I wouldn't think so. I'd call that a sound measure for protecting the public from a potentially HIV-positive rapist, two facts that are vital for people to know in entering into interactions with him and coincidentally two facts that he might not disclose.

[–]Skrapion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Considering I know somebody who's currently serving 5 years for an alleged rape that occurred 20 years ago and for which there's no evidence and countless reasonable doubts as to the veracity of the accusation, yes, this guy got off light.

But denying him HIV treatment is right up there with opposing clean needle programs. All you're doing is increasing the chance that he'll spread the disease to somebody else.

[–]smarty1017 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

hhmmm...if I didn't want to get raped I'd say I am HIV hoped he wouldn't ...good luck...but to allow him to rape and then say you're HIV...maybe they should stay together...