Blaming the Black Man
We are twenty years into the AIDS epidemic and people still think that you can have unsafe sex and that it’s the responsiblity of others to protect them from HIV.
Thurston County prosecutors yesterday charged a 31-year-old Lacey man for allegedly having unprotected sex with several women while knowing he was infected with the virus that causes AIDS.
Anthony Whitfield is being held at the Thurston County Jail on four charges of first-degree assault. He was arrested Wednesday.
In the TV version of this story, it is apparent that the man is black. All of the "victims" that were shown on TV were white.
Did any of the women demand that he wear a condom? Apparently not. It was his responsibility to protect them by disclosing his HIV status.
It was amazing to listen to one woman rant and cry about how this man had infected them with HIV. One said that she hoped he would rot in jail, another said with a celebratory tone in her voide that he would rot in jail because he had HIV. Somebody else remarked that finding out that you are HIV positive is a death sentence.
HIV has never been a death sentence, even though the medical profession and AIDS activists, who make a lot of money from perpetuating that falsehood, have always wanted us to believe that.
This article seems to suggest that testing postive for HIV and testing positive for AIDS are the same thing. They are not the same thing.
I personally know of several people who were infected in the late 70’s and early 80’s with HIV who have never gotten AIDS and still have perfectly normal immune systems. They are genetically resistent to HIV, something that is to be expected given that genetic variation is the basis for evolution.
In addition, new drug therapies that became widely used in the mid-nineties often allow HIV positive individuals to live for many years.
People don’t die from HIV in this country in a year’s time anymore, as they did in the early 80’s.
You would think with all the money that has been spent on HIV/AIDS education in this country over the last twenty years that people would not still believe such stupid things about it.
There are two factors that come into play with all infectious diseases. There is the pathogen, in this case HIV, and there is the susceptibility to the pathogen. HIV is not a problem for those who are genetically resistant to it. Is the person who carries the pathogen responsible for another person’s lack of resistance to that pathogen?
Given that some people have a genetic resistence to HIV, and Anthony Whitfield has no way of knowing his partners’ genetic makeup or having any control over it, is it his responsibility to disclose his HIV status to people who are so ignorant of the subject? Should he have to endure their rejection and probable discrimination? Should he have that additional burden and suffer their rejection,
The laws are written to put the burden on the HIV positive person to not infect others. Would these women have been infected if the law was written to reflect their own personal responsibility in their infection? If the law didn’t have the effect of allowing these women to blame the man for their infection, would they have been more likely to insist on having safe sex?
The TV report also noted that this man has fathered two children by a couple of the women he was having sex with. Condoms would probably have prevented that also. But when you can force the taxpayers to pay for the children, why bother?
Who are the real victims here? The media and the law would have us believe that the black man is.
I don’t buy it. The fact that the women didn’t practice safe sex had as much to do with their infection and their pregnancies as his actions did. He is certainly not responsible for their ignorance about HIV, he is the victim of it.
I’m not suggesting that he or anybody else should go around purposely infecting peeople with HIV. What I’m saying is that if he’s going to be penalized for telling people that he’s HIV positive and he’s going to be penalized for not telling them, what is he supposed to do? When the law puts individuals in lose-lose situations, they’re going to do crazy things.
He is as much of victim of their ignorance and irresponsibility as they are of his. Taxpayers and people who pay health insurance premiums are victims of all of them. But in this case, only the black man will get the blame.
UPDATE 12/21/04: It was reported on the news this evening that Anthony Whitfield was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in jail today.
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts
March 31st, 2004 at 11:32 am
“Given that some people have a genetic resistence to HIV, and Anthony Whitfield has no way of knowing his partners’ genetic makeup or having any control over it, is it his responsibility to disclose his HIV status to people who are so ignorant of the subject? Should he have to endure their rejection and probable discrimination.”
Without commenting on the law: Yes, it is his moral responsibility to disclose a condition he knows very well is highly likely to be a major factor in the formation of his prospective sex partner’s consent. Informed consent is needed here and at a minimum that requires the disclosure of such a condition when known. And yes of course he should have to endure their rejection and probable discrimination - like any other prospective partner.
March 31st, 2004 at 2:36 pm
“What I’m saying is that if he’s going to be penalized for telling people that he’s HIV positive…”
Letting partners decide for themselves based on the available information is a penalty?
March 31st, 2004 at 3:42 pm
“Informed consent is needed here and at a minimum that requires the disclosure of such a condition when known. And yes of course he should have to endure their rejection and probable discrimination - like any other prospective partner.”
In an ideal world I would agree with you. But wait… the woman have already consented to having unsafe sex by not using female condoms or insisting that their partner use a condom. It is not safe to have sex with an HIV- person; they might have seroconverted since their last test.
For a person to claim a right to informed consent, shouldn’t they be better informed themselves?
“Letting partners decide for themselves based on the available information is a penalty?”
It is a penalty when they show so little respect for “available information” that they never bother to seek it out. Did these women ask him his status? I don’t think we know that. Have they informed themselves about the risks of HIV or other sexual transmitted diseases? From their comments, it doesn’t appear so. Have they been tested themselves to know whether they are putting him at risk? We don’t know that either.
To trade high-quality information (facts) for low-quality information (ignorance about HIV) would be trading a higher value for a lower value. In the world of Objectivism, THAT would be immoral.
Self-defense against ignorance must be factored into this equation. They always had the right to defend themselves against infection that required no disclosure at all from him. They didn’t do that. They believed it was his job to take care of them; rather than their right AND obligation to take care of themselves.
March 31st, 2004 at 6:08 pm
Explain the penalty. It seems like you’re saying the penalty is that one doesn’t get to have sex with a person that one doesn’t trust to competently decide whether to have sex.
Maybe my standards are too high because that doesn’t sound like a penalty to me.
March 31st, 2004 at 9:31 pm
I don’t know what your standards for sex are but your standards for context-keeping are very low.
When I spoke of penalties it was in a much broader context than just sex.
“I’m not suggesting that he or anybody else should go around purposely infecting peeople with HIV. What I’m saying is that if he’s going to be penalized for telling people that he’s HIV positive and he’s going to be penalized for not telling them, what is he supposed to do? When the law puts individuals in lose-lose situations, they’re going to do crazy things.”
The penalty will be having to deal with the irrational response to his infection that he will get from the woman, but much more importantly, society at large. HIV has a stigma attached to it, and that sigma will affect far more important things than his sex life.
So the penalty for telling the truth is having to deal with irrational people who can’t handle the truth. The penalty for lying is what he’s experiencing now. He’s in a double-bind. Damned if he do and damned if he don’t.
It seems that all parties were involved in having casual sex. In that context, they should ALL have been practicing safe sex.
Self-defense! Self-defense! Self-defense!
April 1st, 2004 at 5:42 am
“The penalty will be having to deal with the irrational response to his infection that he will get from the woman, but much more importantly, society at large. HIV has a stigma attached to it, and that sigma will affect far more important things than his sex life.
So the penalty for telling the truth is having to deal with irrational people who can’t handle the truth.”
He gets to choose who he wants to reveal this to doesn’t he? No one is forcing him to choose irrational women as prospective sex partners. No one is forcing him to disclose his condition to anyone. So the only thing he forgoes by by abstaining in such cases is the opportunity to have sex with an irrational person.
“Damned if he do and damned if he don’t.”
How is he damned if he exercises good judgment and chooses rational partners? How is he damned if he exercises good judgment and abstains from propositioning irrational people?
Or is that just too high a bar to get over?
The very idea that one might substitute one’s own judgment for that of one’s prospective partner by withholding this information is morally repugnant. The very idea that one would value having sex with someone one didn’t trust to be competent to decide to have sex is morally repugnant.
This is what casual means now?
April 1st, 2004 at 10:40 am
I never said the he was making rational choices or that the women he was invovled with are making rational choices. These are heterosexuals we’re talking about here, right? More than twenty years into the AIDS epidemic, they are still having unsafe sex.
The point of my original post, which you keep missing, is that he’s the only one being blamed for a situtation in which everybody is acting irrationally. That is the context which you keep dropping.
And since I know you share my belief that all relationships should be voluntary, you will accept my decision to ban your further comments from my site.
Some of us do not have the luxury of living in your libertarian fantasyland; we must live in the real world where we are constantly called upon to defend ourselves against the irrationality of others.
Just think of the great things we could accomplish if we weren’t forced to waste our time on such nonsense. And we are constantly forced by the government and social norms to waste our time on it.
Irrational people substitute their judgment for us all the time. If we lived in your libertarian fantasyland, they would not be able to do that.
But we don’t live in that world any more that we live in a world where heterosexuals are going to give up their special entitlements.
What is morally repugnant to me is that you are not rational enough to grasp that. You substitute a nonexistent context for an existing context; trading a high value, the truth of the real world, for a low value, your nonexistent libertarian fantasyland.
From now on, you’ll have to use your own bandwidth for that.
May 1st, 2004 at 1:26 pm
i am reviewing with horror the information and comments posted here. i am a victim of Anthony Whitfield. i MADE him wear a condom. i ASKED him if he had ever been tested for HIV. he denied his infection. the condome i used with him eight years ago BROKE! does this make me a “deserving” victim? i don’t think so. i hope you don’t either. and since i knew him personally, but found out aboud his serious promiscuity only after hearing his HIV status, i had only my own instincts to go on which led me to believe that he was safe, due to his word. my instincts failed me. i tried to press charges against him. i am lucky in that i didn’t test positive. but the bottom line here is that this man was lying, not just to be able to have sex, but to be able to transmit AIDS. he deliberately has sex with women to transmit this virus, not just for sexual gratification. that is sick. he is a as bad as any other serial murderer known. and so what if it isn’t an immediate death sentence? who care’s? it’s AIDS! there is no known cure and the end results is still a shortened life expectancy! if it had been given to me, i know it would feel like a death sentence, and he would be the murderer.
May 6th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER. HIV AND AIDS IS NOT SOMETHING TO PLAY AROUND WITH. I THINK THAT BOTH MR. WHITFIELD AND ALL OF HIS VICTIMS ARE GUILTY! I JUST THINK IT’S SO DAMN SAD THAT KIDS ARE BEING BORN WITH THIS TERRIBLE VIRUS AND ARE CONDEMNED TO DIE. I AM 19 YEARS OLD AND IF I DECIDE TO HAVE SEX WITH A NEW PARTNER I WILL DAMN SURE USE A CONDOM, I AM NOT TRYING TO KILL MYSELF FOR SOMETIMES NOT EVEN 5 MINUTES OF PLEASURE. I HOPE SOMEONE WILL READ THIS AND THINK TWICE ABOUT THE THINGS THEY DO. PLEASE YOU PEOPLE PROTECT YOURSELF USE A CONDOM.
May 9th, 2004 at 11:59 am
Of course the “Black Man” has an obligation to provide information about his status to prospective partners. Its a moral obligation. You seem to herald on the side of self-indulgence and self-gratification. It’s the type of attitude that has been destroying our people for centuries. In Africa personal responsibility for sexual behaviour visa vis the implications of what it may portend for prospective partners is overlooked in favor of this kind of self-indulgence. “if it feels good , do it.” The results are suffering, disease, orphans, a breakdown of what little social structure existed and a decimation of the Black African popiulation mass. This is a self-inflicted sui-genocide which is a consequence of an abrogation of personal responsibility toward others. As a Black Man I do have and am capable of exercising full responsibility for my actions because I am nothing less than fully Human. To HELL with Whitfield and others like him who use their Blackness to make excuses for their propensity to harm others. “After all hes ONLY a BLACK man, what can be expected from him ?” As a Black Man I am on this Earth to bring blessings not curses. I hope Whitfield gets what he deserves and his victims some comfort from that.
As for you, I cant say which, but youre either another Black idiot with a forum you dont deserve or a White Moron harboring a belief that Blacks are animals who cant be expected to behave like Men and need to be protected from themselves by others who SHOULD know better, even their victims. Only an idiot blames the victim.
An Angry Black Man,
Ron Powwers
November 9th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Castrate this guy…
It seems that in Tacoma, WA Anthony “Tony” Whitfield is intentionally spreading the HIV. He is infecting women that do not know of his infection through intercourse and in turn they are spreading the virus. What should we do about these types of crim…
December 27th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
Thank God he will never be able to do that to any other woman. I hope that more women come forward and turn the guys in that infected them. And once that happens maybe they will stop infecting people. These guys are committing cold blooded murder and I am glad the law is catching up with them.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
ok here it goes hang on tight!!!!
I knew Anthony (Tony) to those who knew him. I have had numerous conversations outings and get togethers with Anthony. I must say we were shocked to find out that he had AIDS he looked “normal” yeah we all knew that he liked to sleep around but wow this hit home.
Now his victims,…….. I have to tell you that these were all young girls and girls that lets just say liked to get around all drug users or new to the drug secene. All very nieve. They make themselves look like victims but sorry that doesn’t fly with me!!!!!! They all knew how Anthony was he never hid it from any of us!!!! He was very open about sex and those girls knew he got around.
I do know that he needs to be punished for what he did but It sickens me to see these girls on here that cry victim….. it is 2005 what happened to the condom. They are just as much to blame in my opinion. let me say again I do think Anthony should do his time but it is 2005 aren’t we responsible for ourselves too.