Honey Boo Boo | Lee Thompson | News

Honey Boo Boo's Uncle Poodle Says He is HIV-Positive, Pressed Charges Against Boyfriend

Lee Thompson (aka Honey Boo Boo's Uncle Poodle), reveals he is HIV-positive in an interview with Atlanta's gay magazine Fenuxe:

UnclepoodleDino: Lee, when did you find out about your HIV status?

Lee: I was adamant about getting my HIV status checked on a regular basis. On March 16, 2012, I tested negative. Then, in May of 2012 my test results came back positive. I knew it had been my boyfriend who infected me. I later learned he had been HIV positive and was not taking medication and had not bothered to tell me about it. I was advised that I should press charges and, hesitantly, I did. It was the right thing to do.

Dino: What happened to your ex?

Lee: He is serving a 5-year sentence. I would have been cool with his HIV status if he had been honest. I don’t have an issue with the disease. I would have known how to protect myself.

Dino: What is your message to folks having unsafe sex?

Lee: They are damn fools! They are playing Russian roulette; they are playing with their lives and that of their sexual partners.

Previously...
The Tao Of Uncle Poodle: Honey Boo Boo's Kinsman Speaks Out [tlrd]
A Pro-Gay Message from Honey Boo Boo: VIDEO [tlrd]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. @DB, I sure you hope you are being ironic here.

    "However, now that he found out, my friend of course reported the infected criminal to the police."

    So you're saying that even though your friend didn't contract HIV, he still reported the guy to the police?

    There's something seriously wrong with you. Your friend should be sued for malicious persecution.

    Posted by: Asher | Jan 15, 2013 4:43:17 PM


  2. @Marty, cut out the holier than thou crap. You are the very reason that there is stigma against HIV+ men, and why some HIV+ men lie about their status. You see it as "us" against "them."

    It takes two to tango.

    Posted by: Asher | Jan 15, 2013 4:45:07 PM


  3. You know what's shameful and selfish is all the guys who THINK they're negative (which is anyone who doesn't know they're positive)acting entitled to bareback sex without consequences. You DO deserve to get whatever STD you get, even HIV if you don't wear a condom. STUPID. SELFISH. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 4:55:00 PM


  4. "Asher" the crime is failing to disclsoure...meaning the crime is that you did not tell....it doesn't depend on whether the other person actually got infected. What's not clear about that?

    Also, unfortunately it's not as simple as "it takes two to tango". One person is "tango-ing" with a deadly disease that they KNOW they have...and should feel some moral oblgation to tell. Obviously, that is not the case given the comments here, which is why the law had to step in. No matter how you slice it, you are putting someone else's life at risk when you could simple give that person THE CHOICE. I'm 100 percent sure you or anyone else who is currently infected would have loved to be given that same choice. I know it's not fair, but people's live are at stake.
    As much sex as gay men have you would think it was the last piece of pipe at the factory. One less is not going to make the difference in the long run. Please.

    Posted by: Marty | Jan 15, 2013 5:00:06 PM


  5. @ TOOBOOT

    I agree with you on some of your points.

    It is obvious that you do not understand that NOT disclosing HIV+ status is wrong if you are engaging in sexual activity with another person - WITH or WITHOUT CONDOMS.

    What about that do you not understand?

    Posted by: Justin | Jan 15, 2013 5:00:12 PM


  6. Justin, you can try and guilt me all you want, but it won't work. Call me selfish and reckless all you want. It still wont change the fact that you don't have control over me or anyone else. You only have control over yourself, and if you have unprotected sex, regardless of my lack of moral character or my selfishness or recklessness or whatever, you are the one that is going to have an incurable disease and you won't be able to prove I gave you the virus. I'll just say I disclosed to you and that you had multiple partners so it couldn't be me.

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 5:04:13 PM


  7. If a man gave a woman HIV in the same manner, he would practically be burned at the stake. Why is this any different? Because we should "know" better but heterosexual women are at a lower risk? Give me a break. It's this guy's mistake, but the HIV+ guy broke a law and gave this guy a life sentence, end of story.

    Posted by: Robert | Jan 15, 2013 5:06:45 PM


  8. Um, without going into a whole "legal-evidence" discussion TooBoot I can assure you it doesn't play out in courts that way....but I don't think that matters to you...you are determined to make all gay men pay for what happened to you...thankfully, the law has stepped in.

    Posted by: Marty | Jan 15, 2013 5:09:04 PM


  9. Haven't we been through all this ?
    Each is responsible for himself. No blame, no excuses, no retribution.
    This is a health issue, not a criminal one and pointing the finger at another gets us nowhere.

    But all this has the whiff of a show that's running out of sensational disclosures and is desperate for the next one.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jan 15, 2013 5:13:05 PM


  10. You guys bitching and moaning about disclosure live in a fantasy world where everyone is HIV negative and therefore don't ask or disclose. Those of us who live in the real world assume everyone is positive and unless you say you are not we assume you are and so we have the unsafe sex you are willing to have. If you just had our mindset, the need for disclosure would be moot, because you would be using a condom, or having anal-less sex (unless you mean rimming of course).

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 5:13:38 PM


  11. @TooBoot

    I am not trying to make you feel guilty about anything. I don't want control over you or anyone else for that matter. I'm not looking to prove anything about who gave who 'what'.

    Obviously, you are angry and don't get it. I understand why as - the stigma and challenges of hiv are there for everyone - positive and negative.

    Regardless, I wish you the best.

    I hope that most people that are hiv+ do not think and act like you.

    Posted by: Justin | Jan 15, 2013 5:17:32 PM


  12. This just harms the image of gay men. We're being portrayed as ill people. Gay men need to take some of the blame for being so promiscuous. The gay media seems to love the "gay man = ill" equation.

    By the way, has anyone thought that this guy is an attention whore?

    Posted by: stephen lucas | Jan 15, 2013 5:30:07 PM


  13. Justin, someone who is positive who does not disclose is just as WRONG as someone who is negative who does not protect himself. You are right, I am angry. When people scapegoat, that pisses me off. Take responsibility for your own life and I'll take responsibility for mine. I don't ow you anything. Oh, I get it, you want to put the burden of safety on the HIV positive person. I wish you well too and hope that most HIV negative guys are not as obtuse as you.

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 5:33:05 PM


  14. Wow, some people have a twisted view of reality. Yes, our health is our own responsibility, but if we're going with that line then we should just really preach abstinence only, all take vows of celibacy, and--while we're at it--live in bubbles. We live in a society of relationships, and we have laws to set up the responsibilities that we owe each other.

    Poodle's boyfriend failed in his responsibility based on the presented evidence, plain and simple, so I'm not sure why we're getting into discussions about having a sense of entitlement, bare-backing, Southern culture, or criminalizing disease. It's about duty of disclosure. Period.

    Posted by: Stefan | Jan 15, 2013 5:33:36 PM


  15. This is ridiculous, HIV is manageable, what if someone transmits Herpes or Hep C ?? Those can be either very painful or deadly. Also: Does the judge just assume that Poodle was monogamous i.e. take his word over the Poz dude?? Also: when I was single i would bleed with a rubber, a broken rubber is how i converted!! Just don't have sex if you don't want HIV.. jeez

    Posted by: ty | Jan 15, 2013 5:38:09 PM


  16. So, what now Marty are you some sort of legal expert in this area. You don't know all the jurisdictions and their laws. In NY the burden of proof for intent is on the plaintiff, which is necessary to have a case. As I recall you live in the Netherlands so don't act like you know what our legal system is like.

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 5:38:23 PM


  17. @ TooBoot

    Thankfully, there are laws in place that do not agree with you. People that do not reveal their hiv+ status can go to jail.

    You do owe people (positive and negative) the disclosure of your hiv+ status - regardless of whether condoms are used and regardless of the other person's status.

    You simply don't get it and probably never will. Your anger will only bring you down not me...

    I always play safe - whether single or partnered. (Currently, I am dating someone for 5 months who is hiv+).

    Over & Out on this subject -I am done as I said what I have to say...

    Posted by: Justin | Jan 15, 2013 5:45:04 PM


  18. Justin
    You must feel all warm and safe inside knowing that there are laws out there that unjustly punish people with no intent to harm. Let that lull you into a false sense of security so you can sleep better at night.

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 5:50:08 PM


  19. If you are failing to disclosure your HIV status you are intending to harm (intentional, negligent, reckless, etc.). Tooboots you likely have never been involved in criminal court proceeeding...yet. I wouldn't go betting the farm on "well, I'll just say they were promiscous...case closed!". Anyway, with that, I'll end it.

    Posted by: Marty | Jan 15, 2013 6:06:54 PM


  20. Tooboot: An HIV positive person who has unprotected sex with someone without discussing their HIV status can be presumed to have an intent to harm. At a minimum it shows a reckless disregard for another human being. Some negative people are stupid and carefree, and willing to have unprotected sex with strangers. It's your responsibility (it's all of our responsibilities) to educate them, not to infect them.

    Perhaps you are in denial about the magnitude and horror of this plague, otherwise you would never, ever, want to risk passing the infection on just to have bareback sex with a stranger. If you are aware of the fact that 1.7 million people died of AIDS-related illnesses last year, and still act so recklessly, then you are exactly the sort of monster who needs to be in jail for the protection of society. Take a long look in the mirror, and rethink your position on this.

    Status disclosure: I'm negative, and in a committed relationship with a positive man.

    Posted by: BABH | Jan 15, 2013 6:16:42 PM


  21. Marty you are wrong in your legal assumption of intent, in California for example one cannot be prosecuted on failing to disclose alone, there must be an intent to harm. In NY there is no law specifying HIV disclosure. You and Justin and anyone else who is so fixated on prosecuting HIV positive people fail to realize that these laws do not improve prevention or change disclosure attitudes in the states where they specify HIV disclosure culpability. These clearly serve the irresponsible and promiscuous that are looking to make a buck off the system all the while obfuscating their responsibilty.

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 6:23:06 PM


  22. BABH that is your presumption because you see us as monsters, hiding under your bed at night like boogy men ready to grab you. The fact is, very few prosecuted cases have shown intent. You think by prosecuting non disclosers it somehow makes the world safer, but it doesn't. YOU and you alone are the one who can insure your safety by wearing a condom. If you insist on babebacking, I assume you are positive, or don't care about HIV. Why should I assume otherwise? Why am I responsible to educate you? You are an adult! You have a brain and can reason and make choices like a big boy. How many other areas of your life do you abdicate responsibility?

    Posted by: TooBoot | Jan 15, 2013 6:39:26 PM


  23. At the end of the day we all have to protect ourselves, people lie and sometimes don't know.

    It's just sad when someone is supposed to be your "boyfriend" in a LTR... someone who is supposed to care and does not disclose their status. I haven't had unprotected sex yet but would like to with my LT BF, but I guess you can never trust someone 100%.

    I just don't understand how you can do that to someone.

    One night stands or Grindr you're on your own.

    That's just the way I feel morally

    Posted by: Marky | Jan 15, 2013 6:56:38 PM


  24. No Tooboot. I love my husband. It's your current argument I have a problem with, not with you personally, and not with positive men in general. I really hope to be able to change your mind about this, because you are wrong, and HIV is a virulent plague.

    Again: it's not all on HIV positive men. It is everyone's responsibility. But if one person fails to be responsible (e.g. by not asking), that's not an excuse for the other person to be irresponsible by avoiding a conversation about HIV status.

    Yes, it is absolutely your responsibility to educate people, because you know a lot, and there is far too much ignorance about HIV. That's why it's starting to spread faster and faster among ignorant gay men who think it's like having diabetes (as if *that's* something anyone would want).

    Posted by: BABH | Jan 15, 2013 6:57:03 PM


  25. well in his defense it's not that uncommon to get tested two months apart. I get tested when I have a physical but if I'm at Pride and there are free rapid results tests you might as well do it.

    Posted by: testington | Jan 15, 2013 7:38:01 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Rhode Island House Panel to Hear Testimony on Same-Sex Marriage Bill Today« «