Gay-basher gets AIDS from his victim during the beating

[snopes]

Comment: Supposedly in the late '80s or '90s, in either San Francisco's gay Castro district or New York's Village, a gay basher attacked a gay man.

Hitting the gay man in the nose & mouth caused the gay man to bleed.

The skin on the attacker's fists became torn during the attack, and during
each punch were dipped in the victim's blood.

This caused the attacker to get AIDS from his victim. Poetic justice.

Is it true or false?

[Casey]

No idea if it has happened, but it could easily be true. Non-sexual, non-IV drug use transmission is pretty rare, but blood is still mixing. It reminds me of an older CSI where a man contracted AIDS when he stabbed someone, and blood got in his eyes.

[Dropbear]

Of course a much more probable explanation (using Occams razor) is that the man was engaging in unprotected anal intercourse with other men as well as bashing them and used the latter as an explanation because he did not wish to confess to the former.

Dropbear

[HazyCosmicJive]

While I think Dropbear's explanation is the greatest thing that will be written in this thread, I kind of see the OP comment as non-violent homophobe scarelore. Like, the homophobes who don't want to see homosexuals beaten, just shunned, come up with a non-sympathetic reason to suggest that beating teh gays isn't a good idea.

[Dropbear]

Originally Posted by HazyCosmicJive

While I think Dropbear's explanation is the greatest thing that will be written in this thread, I kind of see the OP comment as non-violent homophobe scarelore. Like, the homophobes who don't want to see homosexuals beaten, just shunned, come up with a non-sympathetic reason to suggest that beating teh gays isn't a good idea.

If that was the idea then it was misguided for three reasons:
1. it promotes fear and prejudice and the idea that all gay men have aids
2. it promotes as likely a very unlikely transmission process
3. it is very readily adapted to homophobic purposes through the addition of "So when you go bashing make sure you use a bat" which transforms it from a moral caution to an instructional story in 2 seconds flat.

Dropbear

[HazyCosmicJive]

Originally Posted by Dropbear

If that was the idea then it was misguided for three reasons:
1. it promotes fear and prejudice and the idea that all gay men have aids
2. it promotes as likely a very unlikely transmission process

Sure, I think those things are obvious from the OP comment - the intent is clearly anti-gay. I had thought that the intent behind the OP comment was "homosexuals are evil and diseased and awful, but you shouldn't beat them up, and here's a "practical" reason why." In other words, people trying to reconcile their pCm "I hate gays" attitude with their actual Christian non-violence.

3. it is very readily adapted to homophobic purposes through the addition of "So when you go bashing make sure you use a bat" which transforms it from a moral caution to an instructional story in 2 seconds flat.

I actually hadn't considered that angle, but you are absolutely right. Which means that the OP comment isn't as self-righteously non-violent as I originally thought.

I fear that you think I think the story by the commenter is not homophobic, which is not at all what I was trying to say. Perhaps a bottle of wine has imparied my ability to express clearly. And it may have also impaired my reading comprehension.

[Dropbear]

Originally Posted by HazyCosmicJive

I fear that you think I think the story by the commenter is not homophobic, which is not at all what I was trying to say. Perhaps a bottle of wine has imparied my ability to express clearly. And it may have also impaired my reading comprehension.

Ah yes - I did get the wrong end of the stick

But I believe we can, do and have both agreed that anybodyusing homophobia to try and prevent homophobia is not a good idea.

And now I think i shall join you in a little wine.

Dropbear

[Troberg]

Unlikely. When you are bleeding, blood tends to leave the body, not enter it. It's possible, but unlikely.

I've seen recommendations from official health sources here that states that, for instance, in case of a traffic accident, the risk of HIV infection is so tiny that there is no reason to avoid helping a bleeding victim, even if you are bleeding yourself. HIV is pretty rare here, which further lowers the risk. Of course, people who constantly face these situations (like emergency personel) should take precautions, but they are also prepared and have the needed equipment for that.

If this it true, well, then he effing had it coming. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...

[catty5nutz]

I remember hearing about a nurse who was assisting at an operation. The patient had AIDS, and the patient bled rather heavily during the surgery - splattering blood everywhere, including on the uncovered part of the nurse's face. She had open acne sores, and as a result, she got infected.

It could be a UL, of course.

I think till I see any sort of proof that I will take it a read that that is an urban legend.

[Corlis]

Reminds me of a story I've seen on a blog about a medic who had an infected person vomit into his mouth accidentally, so he had to go through the whole rigamarole of anti-viral drugs and such. He didn't catch a thing though, and apparently it's not too much of a risk.

From the horse's mouth: Story

[matches]

This kind of reminds me of the supersperm UL's you hear about in health class, of after a heavy petting session a single sperms swiming through a boys pants across a girls pants, into her vagina and fertilizing an egg.

While I would not say that such a trasmission is impossible, but the possibility of it occuring seems so remote as to render the caution pointless.

Likewise, the idea that a single droplet of infected blood would contain enough virus to infect a person through casual contact seems so remote as to make the caution unwaranted. Certainly its possible in the sense that the earth is 6,000 years old is possible, but the fact is not relayed to you without an alterier motive.

[geminilee]

matches, I always thought that the pregnancy risk was in cases when there is very heavy petting without clothes but with no penetration. The guy ejaculates on the girl, or transfers pre-cum through genital rubbing, and pregnancy results. I have never heard of it happening to clothed partners. Still unlikely, but much less far fetched than the version you have apparently heard.

I am pretty sure that a droplet of blood could infect someone, or else why all the needle stick precautions? It is unlikely that you would get more than a droplet on a needle.

I've been doing HIV education for 20 years now (along with stds, drugs, contraception, etc.) The bashing story isn't very new, and I'd say it's false. There's only one case of HIV transmission through a bite (documented at least.) From my recollection, it was a prison guard who was bitten by a recently beaten inmate. His mouth has a lot of blood in it - he bit the guard & transmission occurred.

Now, I heard it second hand from a co-trainer. I always assumed it was true, but as I type this - I'm wondering...

The blood transmission through needles is not from the outside, (although that could be possible.) The reason needle use is so dangerous is because when you stick a needle in your arm, blood rushes into the barrel of the syringe. (You want to make sure you hit a vein & the presence of blood tells you if you have.) If there's HIV in the blood, it can contaminate any part of the inside of the needle. It's a great environment for the virus because it's moist, warm & sheltered from the air. Pass the needle on, and whatever is inside the syringe is also passed on.

[sneeze042]

Originally Posted by Casey

No idea if it has happened, but it could easily be true. Non-sexual, non-IV drug use transmission is pretty rare, but blood is still mixing. It reminds me of an older CSI where a man contracted AIDS when he stabbed someone, and blood got in his eyes.

They had something similar to that on House, when an HIV+ patient started spurting blood for some reason and it got in one of the doctor's eyes.

[Casey]

Originally Posted by WolverSyr

The blood transmission through needles is not from the outside, (although that could be possible.) The reason needle use is so dangerous is because when you stick a needle in your arm, blood rushes into the barrel of the syringe. (You want to make sure you hit a vein & the presence of blood tells you if you have.) If there's HIV in the blood, it can contaminate any part of the inside of the needle. It's a great environment for the virus because it's moist, warm & sheltered from the air. Pass the needle on, and whatever is inside the syringe is also passed on.

Bingo, and even there with near-perfect conditions it's only a 1 in 400 chance.