• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

pixelation

Member
...who is suggesting that it's ok to lie about your status?

Plagiarize see's no reason to disclose your HIV status, so i wouldn't be surprised if he believes it's okey to lie (if asked directly about his HIV status) because there is "virtually" no chance of infecting your partner.
 
Because you keep using data and breakthroughs from A MONTH AGO. Let's give it time to ensure it all sticks. If anything, you have the great news for your new partner that you had it, but you're no longer able to transmit it. Again, I feel like somebody should know either way. And this sounds insensitive, but the feelings and potential of being passed on matters little in comparison to the well-being and the agency to chose and consent or not.

Again, the day that we get a sure fire, easy, and inexpensive cure, you should be expected to inform.

No. I don't.

I'm pointing to the CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL making a public statement that the chance of infection is effectively zero. That statement is based on years worth of papers and science. The CDC is never going to make a statement like that based on a single untested hypothesis. Their whole reason for existence is to limit the spread of diseases. Trust me when I say that they are never going to be the first organization labelling a specific behavior as safe.
 
Because you keep using data and breakthroughs from A MONTH AGO. Let’s give it time to ensure it all sticks. If anything, you have the great news for your new partner that you had it, but you’re no longer able to transmit it. Again, I feel like somebody should know either way. And this sounds insensitive, but the feelings and potential of being passed on matters little in comparison to the well-being and the agency to chose and consent or not.

Again, the day that we get a sure fire, easy, and inexpensive cure, you should be expected to inform.
the CDC just recently issued the statement.

the research showing this has been around longer than a month.

for example, see https://www.preventionaccess.org/consensus
 

royalan

Member
Plagiarize see's no reason to disclose your HIV status, so i wouldn't be surprised if he believes it's okey to lie (if asked directly about his HIV status) because there is "virtually" no chance of infecting your partner.

You should probably construct your argument around what plagiarize (or anyone else in this thread) has actually said.
 
Because you keep using data and breakthroughs from A MONTH AGO. Let’s give it time to ensure it all sticks. If anything, you have the great news for your new partner that you had it, but you’re no longer able to transmit it. Again, I feel like somebody should know either way. And this sounds insensitive, but the feelings and potential of being passed on matters little in comparison to the well-being and the agency to chose and consent or not.

Again, the day that we get a sure fire, easy, and inexpensive cure, you should be expected to inform.

Ummmm, the CDC is simply catching up with the times. Other organizations have been stating these facts for years now.
 

pixelation

Member
I know GAF generally has a defense force for everything, but I really think we've hit rock bottom here with our new "there's a chance you'll get HIV but it's such a small chance, I shouldn't have to tell you!" HIV defense force. What a fucking disgusting thread to read. Oh sure HIV medicine works for most people, if you can afford it. So best case scenario you're HIV+ the rest of your life and dealing with expensive medicine and doctor bills, plus the hassle of having to stick to a strict medicine regimen. But the chance was so small, I'm sure you'll forgive the piece of shit who felt they didn't need to tell you. Jeebus.

I know right?, a bunch of people to place on my ignore list... makes me even more weary of meeting new people. You never know which weirdo you'll encounter or worse... have sex with. I might just have to become celibate.
 
Plagiarize see's no reason to disclose your HIV status, so i wouldn't be surprised if he believes it's okey to lie (if asked directly about his HIV status) because there is "virtually" no chance of infecting your partner.

Nothing "virtual" about it. Undetectable HIV positive people are not capable of transmitting the disease. This is, again, a scientific fact. Like climate change. Just like a detectable hiv person isn't able to transmit the virus through hugs, kisses, sweat and handshakes. As such, it is not expected for them to disclose every time they engage in the listed activities.

Maybe you should challenge your opinion, since it comes from ignorance and irrational fear. But I don't think that's what you are actually looking for in this thread.
 

Foov

Member
Anyone using the term “clean” in this thread to describe someone who is negative needs to acknowledge their prejudice.
 
Plagiarize see's no reason to disclose your HIV status, so i wouldn't be surprised if he believes it's okey to lie (if asked directly about his HIV status) because there is "virtually" no chance of infecting your partner.

Ask me if I'm HIV positive and I'll tell you it's none of your fucking business. Not sure how well that would sit with you, but I don't see why you or anyone else on NeoGAF gets to know anything about my medical history.
 

royalan

Member
I know right?, a bunch of people to place on my ignore list... makes me even more weary of meeting new people. You never know which weirdo you'll encounter or worse... have sex with. I might just have to become celibate.

...or you could wear condoms?
 
I know right?, a bunch of people to place on my ignore list... makes me even more weary of meeting new people. You never know which weirdo you'll encounter or worse... have sex with. I might just have to become celibate.
No one tell this dude he's probably already got herpes and HPV 😂
 

fireflame

Member
Now this is a very scarce possibility but what would happen in the unikely situation where a condom breaks during an intercourse whith someone who has HIV? How high is risk?
 

pixelation

Member
Nothing "virtual" about it. Undetectable HIV positive people are not capable of transmitting the disease. This is, again, a scientific fact. Like climate change. Just like a detectable hiv person isn't able to transmit the virus through hugs, kisses, sweat and handshakes. As such, it is not expected for them to disclose every time they engage in the listed activities.

Maybe you should challenge your opinion, since it comes from ignorance and irrational fear. But I don't think that's what you are actually looking for in this thread.

Link me to a study where it states that there is ZERO chance of infection. Not virtually, not almost zero. Not practically zero. I just want a big old ZERO no other word before or after it. Zero chance of infection, thank you.
 
Link me to a study where it states that there is ZERO chance of infection. Not virtually, not almost zero. Not practically zero. I just want a big old ZERO no other word before or after it. Zero chance of infection, thank you.

Science is never going to say zero.

Sorry to disappoint.
 

Spoo

Member
So what about informing a partner about your disease is a problem, exactly? I mean, is the concern primarily that they won't want to have sex with you because of outdated fears? Then educate them. If the concern is that they won't take to the education, then don't have sex with them, and find someone who will willingly have sex with you because they understand the science.

If that seems unreasonable, then I guess you can thank the thing or person that gave you HIV. After all, your health is on you, right?
 

pixelation

Member
Ask me if I'm HIV positive and I'll tell you it's none of your fucking business. Not sure how well that would sit with you, but I don't see why you or anyone else on NeoGAF gets to know anything about my medical history.
See?, i knew it.
...or you could wear condoms?
It's my new policy that i demand test results before sex, and i show the same. Recent studies at that.
No one tell this dude he's probably already got herpes and HPV 😂
Right... because those can potentially kill you as well right?.
 
See?, i knew it.

It's my new policy that i demand test results before sex, and i show the same. Recent studies at that.

Right... because those can potentially kill you as well right?.
Your responses in this thread suggest you have an irrational fear of the concept of illness in general, so I can't imagine that makes a difference.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
Then I guess you should respect people you sleep with and give them informed consent.

Sorry to disappoint.

If you are sleeping with someone, you are taking a risk that that person may have a disease. Someone with a confirmed diagnosis but undetectable viral load is lower risk than a random member of the population.

So unless you, as an (I assume) undiagnosed individual, preface every sexual encounter with, "Before we begin you should know that I might have any number of STDs," then someone who's pos is under no obligation to do the same.

When was the last time you were tested, btw?
 

Basketball

Member
As a gay in SF I do not support this

As a gay in NYC, I support this.
n5UL7.gif
 

royalan

Member
So what about informing a partner about your disease is a problem, exactly? I mean, is the concern primarily that they won't want to have sex with you because of outdated fears? Then educate them. If the concern is that they won't take to the education, then don't have sex with them, and find someone who will willingly have sex with you because they understand the science.

If that seems unreasonable, then I guess you can thank the thing or person that gave you HIV. After all, your health is on you, right?

The question in this thread isn't whether or not it's morally wrong.

The question is should it be a felony.
 

pixelation

Member
Link me to a study where it states that there is ZERO chance of infection. Not virtually, not almost zero. Not practically zero. I just want a big old ZERO no other word before or after it. Zero chance of infection, thank you.

I dont know what else you want.

There is an "above zero" possibility that every single sunlight particle hitting the atmosphere could create a black hole that would destroy the Earth in seconds. And yet we dont live in fear of such thing happening because "is not zero".

Although, with undetectable HIV, the possibility is effectively zero.

CDC Agrees That Person with Undetectable HIV Cannot Transmit the Virus

This is as clear as possible. I absolutely understand where this fear comes from I understand how you could see it as "liberals going insane". But this isnt the case.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
So what about informing a partner about your disease is a problem, exactly? I mean, is the concern primarily that they won't want to have sex with you because of outdated fears? Then educate them. If the concern is that they won't take to the education, then don't have sex with them, and find someone who will willingly have sex with you because they understand the science.

If that seems unreasonable, then I guess you can thank the thing or person that gave you HIV. After all, your health is on you, right?

Isn't it a problem in the first place that you wouldn't tell your partner because you know he or she wouldn't sleep with you if they knew you had the disease? That in itself is an issue. Purposefully keeping your infection secret because it'll ruin your chances of getting laid seems like a really immoral thing to do - even if it probably won't affect your partner.
 
See?, i knew it.

What? That's not lying.

Something tells me that were you propositioning me for sex, and I refused to tell you if I had any STDs, that you'd put your dick away. Frankly, if you went ahead and had sex with me after getting that answer... well I doubt anyone would have much sympathy for you if you caught anything.

Am I wrong?

If you think people have to answer questions about their medical history to random strangers, even random strangers they're hooking up with, then you're very wrong.

But you aren't forced to go through with having sex with them if they don't want to answer.

If they lie... and you are actually put at risk... then it should be a crime and still is.

It isn't enough for you to imagine you are at risk mind.
 

Kebiinu

Banned
A lot of y'all sound like you don't have sex, tbh. Again, this bill passing is good. If you have such an irrational fear of HIV, I hope you have the same fears for any STD. Educate your children please, cause hookup culture is real, and people are not going to stop a one night stand to inform their quick fix of a nasty disease they have. That's just not the world we live in. As much as y'all hate to admit.

Disclosure is important. Your health is important. Understand both. Or don't have sex, lol. Even with condoms, there's still a risk for STD infection.
 

Xe4

Banned
Hmm...
Well, I don't think it should be treated differently than other STD's. It should have been in the past, when it was for all intents and purposes a death sentance. The harsher wording and sentancing of the bill was a consequence of that.

I still believe it should be a crime to not inform people you have a severe STD (though certainly not a felony) and I believe you're a dickbag of the highest order if you don't.

Yes, an undetectable viral load cannot give you HIV. But that's assuming the person has an undetectable viral load, which is difficult to ascertain unless you got tested in the recent past and remain current on your medication. Both of those things can slip based on personal error and put others at risk and that's not ok.

Actually giving people HIV intentionally or not should be and is still a felony I beleive. When you're carrying a potentially life threatening and certainly lifelong disease the onus is on you not to spread it. If you do not live up to that, you can have the boom thrown at you.

Anyhow, I'm still trying to finalize my thoughts on the issue. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and all that.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
This doesn't seem like a great idea.

Also I don't know how this could be true:



Is it?



It is true, it is mainly ignorance and emotion that people do not know. I agree with this move. Why should HIV, which no longer is a death sentence be a felony charge?
 
Hmm...
Well, I don't think it should be treated differently than other STD's. It should have been in the past, when it was for all intents and purposes a death sentance. The harsher wording and sentancing of the bill was a consequence of that.

I still believe it should be a crime to not inform people you have a severe STD (though certainly not a felony) and I believe you're a dickbag of the highest order if you don't.

Yes, an undetectable viral load cannot give you HIV. But that's assuming the person has an undetectable viral load, which is difficult to ascertain unless you got tested in the recent past and remain current on your medication. Both of those things can slip based on personal error and put others at risk and that's not ok.

Actually giving the person HIV should be and is still a felony I beleive. When you're carrying a potentially life threatening and certainly lifelong disease the onus is on you not to spread it. If you do not live up to that, you can have the boom thrown at you.

Anyhow, I'm still trying to finalize my thoughts on the issue. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and all that.

There is a reason why you start seeing your doctor every month after you start on HAART, then gradually pare it down to once every six months once you have acheieved results: the chances of you slipping back down is very slim, if ever.

If every HIV+ person can slip, then medical professionals would still suggest they all come in every month if these cases are more common.

Again fears=not reality.
 

Sophist

Member
The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.

Scarry.
 
Knowingly having sex with someone whereby you have an STD and the other person(s) may not, without informing them of your potential infection,

...is sexual assult.

I don't understand the quote by Scott Weiner in the OP.

How does this help HIV awareness, in any way shape or form? To me it just seems to reduce sexual health responsibility. Unless I'm missing something...?
 

Spoo

Member
The question in this thread isn't whether or not it's morally wrong.

The question is should it be a felony.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I would point out that plenty of laws have a moral basis for their determination, so it shouldn't be surprise that for a lot of people -- including people in this thread -- the morality of the decision comes into play when they consider whether or not this should be 'okay.'

The only argument that makes some sense here is when the person with the disease knows it is 100% not possible for them to transmit. But I think this law is a lot more open to those who don't know the chances, so that argument, while reasonably, doesn't account for the openness of this law.

In essence: this law isn't really for the people who *don't* transmit, it's for the people who do, right? Please correct me if I am misrepresenting the possible angles of this law.
 
A lot of y'all sound like you don't have sex, tbh. Again, this bill passing is good. If you have such an irrational fear of HIV, I hope you have the same fears for any STD. Educate your children please, cause hookup culture is real, and people are not going to stop a one night stand to inform their quick fix of a nasty disease they have. That's just not the world we live in. As much as y'all hate to admit.

Disclosure is important. Your health is important. Understand both. Or don't have sex, lol. Even with condoms, there's still a risk for STD infection.

Yeah. I mean, people need to wake up if they think they can avoid STDs just by asking people if they're infected. While a small number may knowingly lie, the majority with them have no idea. You've got to take sensible precautions, and if you're of the mind set that hearing something is effectively zero risk provides you no reassurance that something is safe, then you're probably best off avoiding any and all sexual contact.
 
I don't entirely disagree with you, but I would point out that plenty of laws have a moral basis for their determination, so it shouldn't be surprise that for a lot of people -- including people in this thread -- the morality of the decision comes into play when they consider whether or not this should be 'okay.'

The only argument that makes some sense here is when the person with the disease knows it is 100% not possible for them to transmit. But I think this law is a lot more open to those who don't know the chances, so that argument, while reasonably, doesn't account for the openness of this law.

In essence: this law isn't really for the people who *don't* transmit, it's for the people who do, right? Please correct me if I am misrepresenting the possible angles of this law.

The felony law has been used against people who didn't transmit. From the LA Times article:

Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.
 
Man this thread went in a totally different direction than I expected.

How much are HIV treating drugs these days? If you don't have insurance? Similar in price to other big STDs?

Also, in what world is it okay to not tell a partner you're infected with a serious (even if treatable) disease if you know you have it? Why risk giving someone you supposedly care about something that they will have for life without giving them the choice to decide if they want to roll that dice? How is it okay for you to make that choice for them? I don't understand. I'd say the same if we were talking about any major STD. You have to be a real piece of shit to put someone else in this position knowingly. IMO anyway.
 

CDX

Member
Knowingly having sex with someone whereby you have an STD and the other person(s) may not, without informing them of your potential infection,

...is sexual assult.
Exactly.

This is easy to legally protect yourself.

Before sex, inform the person if they have any STDs and are not disclosing this fact, the sex is not consensual.

If they continue, and the worst case scenario happens, charge them with rape.

Honestly. After reading this thread and the some of the selfish posters in it.

I would 100% vote for any politician that makes this a mandatory scenario and phrase to be taught as part of SexED AND makes sure the law actually supports that scenario.

You don't want to tell your status to someone that wants to know before sex. Well too bad for your hurt feelings that's rape IMO.

They shouldn't even have to ask. but if somebody asks beforehand you tell them.
 
Man this thread went in a totally different direction than I expected.

How much are HIV treating drugs these days? If you don't have insurance? Similar in price to other big STDs?

Also, in what world is it okay to not tell a partner you're infected with a serious (even if treatable) disease if you know you have it? Why risk giving someone you supposedly care about something that they will have for life without giving them the choice to decide if they want to roll that dice? How is it okay for you to make that choice for them? I don't understand. I'd say the same if we were talking about any major STD. You have to be a real piece of shit to put someone else in this position knowingly. IMO anyway.
A huge reason this change has made, is because in many cases people with HIV aren't risking passing on the disease. No dice are being rolled.

Not a lot of people seem to know this, so we get a lot of freaking out. I honestly didn't help by calling them ignorant... but... eh. If the shoe fits and all that.
 

manakel

Member
Trying to compare HIV to other STDs is mind boggling. If someone were to not tell me they have chlamydia, gonorrhea (except this new incurable strain), or syphilis..I could just go to my nearby clinic and get a shot and be cured. Done. Yeah I would be annoyed, but it is a quick fix. If we’re not talking about genital herpes, like 90% of the population has it. Not a big deal.

HIV can drastically change ones life. This isn’t something that can be cured with one shot or a series of shots. So trying to equate it to other common STDs is absolutely ridiculous. And this thought process that it’s completely okay to not tell someone of your status is not doing anything to help alleviate the stigma associated with it.
 

Xe4

Banned
There is a reason why you start seeing your doctor every month after you start on HAART, then gradually pare it down to once every six months once you have acheieved results: the chances of you slipping back down is very slim, if ever.

If every HIV+ person can slip, then medical professionals would still suggest they all come in every month if these cases are more common.

Again fears=not reality.
I would assume it's incredibly difficult if not impossible to slip when on medication. But I also beleive it does happen, often without people even knowing because of forgetting to take medication or whatever. Every HIV+ person can slip, but most do not. Still, even a 5% chance of going from undetectable -> low levels would be considered really good from a medical perspective, but enough so that I beleive it's an important piece of information to pass on.

Of course I'm not sure what the actual number are and cannot find them. I'm not sure what percentage it'd have to be for me to consider it "ok" to not inform your partner. Very low though, because I beleive very strongly that your partners health and safety are far more important than getting laid will ever be.
 
Exactly.



Honestly. After reading this thread and the some of the selfish posters in it.

I would 100% vote for any politician that makes this a mandatory scenario and phrase to be taught as part of SexED AND makes sure the law actually supports that scenario.

You don't want to tell your status to someone that wants to know before sex. Well too bad for your hurt feelings that's rape IMO.

They shouldn't even have to ask. but if somebody asks beforehand you tell them.
wouldn't this just lead back into one of the problems caused by the original law, ie people intentionally not getting tested so they can't be convicted of failing to disclose?
 
Top Bottom