• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:38 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by SapientWolf

That's a grey area for informed consent, and grey isn't a good color for sexual consent.

No argument there.

But take that whole story, and change it to HPV or gonorrhea. Why should it be different for HIV?

Look, something I didn't initially pick up on in this thread, is that it *is* still illegal to knowingly expose someone to HIV.

Now it's a misdemeanor, like for all the other STDs and for other diseases.

Still criminal, but not a felony, and not treated any differently than other diseases.

As it should be.

The reason I said a year in prison, is because that's what a felony means. At least a year in prison.

Why should HIV be the only disease that gets at least a year in prison for knowingly exposing someone to?

There is no logical answer to that question other than 'it shouldn't'.
ElfArmy177
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:39 PM)
ElfArmy177's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

So is Hep C. And HPV. Hep B. And syphilis.

They are also more infectious than HIV.

As a nurse who has worked with infectious diseases. You are incredibly wrong. Infact certain strains of hepatitis are actually curable. Hpv and syphilis are NOWHERE near the danger of hiv.. jesus

Edit: don't spread false information on things you have no clue about unless you're actually in a medical field, work with diseases, or a damn scientist.. we already got arm chair lawyers on the internet, let's not introduce arm chair scientists now
FStubbs
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:39 PM)
I think it should be a felony along with any other STD. The other person has a right to know that they are risking their health by having sex with you.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:39 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

Lol @ some of y'all saying "ALL STDs should be criminalized!" do you know how prevalent STDs are in America? A quick google search will show that as many as 90% of American adults have been exposed to herpes. An absolutely incurable disease that can appear around the genitals and as cold sores. Ever had a cold sore before? Congratulations, you have herpes. Make sure you diagnose that information to every potential date/fling/romance. HPV? 75%...but dont worry, in most cases the virus has no health issues! Still, it's an STD we gotta criminalize, yeah?

Take responsibility. Get educated. Get tested. America is already a cesspit ripe with disease. Don't blame others when you should be asking yourself why you never used a condom, or why "Yeah, I'm clean." is a good enough response before you drop your pants.

My coworker/good friend has a body count of 16+ of random women and romances, when I asked him if he knows his status, his response was "Well I'm sure I'm clean, I've never noticed anything." and when I asked him about the last time he's been tested for STD's, he told me he's NEVER been tested. NEVER BEEN TESTED. The man is 26 years old, slept with all types of women, kissed all types of mouths, and he's NEVER been tested.

I guffawed at his responses, but he was telling me how it's not a big deal at all. He's a totally normal dude otherwise, and I know he's one of many, many Americans. Maybe even some of y'all can relate...

When was the last time you've been tested? If your answer isn't "less than six months ago," then you honestly have no say in whether or not STD's should be criminalized.

Worry about yourself, not putting people in jail for shit like this.

You make some good points but let's also examine the lunacy of somebody with a SERIOUS STD deciding that "Hey, fuck it, I'm going to have sex anyways because I'm horny and sucks to be my partner."
Painguy
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
Painguy's Avatar
Fuck that noise. You give any1 dat shit n its on you especially if its intentionally. No one is tryin to go broke cuz of all them meds just cuz u didnt wanna give a heads up. Thats fucked. Sucks that u have it. Get the fuck who gave it to u in legal trouble instead of screwing more peeps over.

This should apply to any std tbh.
Spiritual_Chaos
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
Spiritual_Chaos's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

No argument there.

But take that whole story, and change it to HPV or gonorrhea. Why should it be different for HIV?

Look, something I didn't initially pick up on in this thread, is that it *is* still illegal to knowingly expose someone to HIV.

Now it's a misdemeanor, like for all the other STDs and for other diseases.

Still criminal, but not a felony, and not treated any differently than other diseases.

As it should be.

The reason I said a year in prison, is because that's what a felony means. At least a year in prison.

Why should HIV be the only disease that gets at least a year in prison for knowingly exposing someone to?

There is no logical answer to that question other than 'it shouldn't'.

Well it does affect you for the rest of your life, unlke other STDs.
Vigilant Walrus
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:41 PM)
Vigilant Walrus's Avatar
I don't think I can fully comprehend what it must have been like at the height of the epidemic in the early 80s. I was not old enough to understand what went on, but reading about, Gaëtan Dugas was heartbreaking and brutal.
He is the guy who was known as "Patient Zero". He was a flight attendant who had sex with a lot of men knowing they would die of the disease too. He did it out of spite because he was bitter.
It's such a terrible story:(
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:41 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElfArmy177

As a nurse who has worked with infectious diseases. You are incredibly wrong. Infact certain strains of hepatitis are actually curable. Hpv and syphilis are NOWHERE near the danger of hiv.. jesus

Edit: don't spread false information on things you have no clue about unless you're actually in a medical field, work with diseases, or a damn scientist.. we already got arm chair lawyers on the internet, let's not introduce arm chair scientists now

All are serious diseases that should be taken seriously.
privitsan02
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
privitsan02's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

If someone got treated for HIV, found out they have it, and neglected to tell their partners. The risk is on YOU. You chose to have sex with that person. Anytime you have sex with someone, you're taking a risk (and not just HIV, either) and it's not THEIR job to inform YOU on their status.



Good grief this post.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mass_Pincup

Never thought I would see so much support to willingly infecting people.



That`s reasonable in that case, not like what is being advocated in this thread.

Please quote the people in this thread who are in favor of people willingly infecting other people with HIV.

It remains a felony to do that. No one in this thread is advocating for that to change, or defending the people that willingly infect.
ElfArmy177
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
ElfArmy177's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

No argument there.

But take that whole story, and change it to HPV or gonorrhea. Why should it be different for HIV?

Look, something I didn't initially pick up on in this thread, is that it *is* still illegal to knowingly expose someone to HIV.

Now it's a misdemeanor, like for all the other STDs and for other diseases.

Still criminal, but not a felony, and not treated any differently than other diseases.

As it should be.

The reason I said a year in prison, is because that's what a felony means. At least a year in prison.

Why should HIV be the only disease that gets at least a year in prison for knowingly exposing someone to?

There is no logical answer to that question other than 'it shouldn't'.

Wtf is wrong with some of you??? HIV is NOTHING Like other STDs... Jesus christ
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:44 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Hypothetically, say I'm taking my treatment responsibly, and my viral load has been measured as 0 the lest two times I got checked up. The CDC have ruled that there is 0 chance I would infect you.

You want to have unprotected sex with me. I know that because of your outdated understanding of what it is to be HIV positive, you wouldn't sleep with me if you knew I was HIV positive, even though there is 0 chance I would infect you. So I don't tell you.

We have sex.

You don't get HIV.

Later, you see some of my viral load results by accident. You become irrationally scared (because the results show my load is 0) and began to sweat that you've got AIDS now. You spend a day or so stressed out, until you can get tested and get your results back. They are naturally negative.

Was it wrong of me not to tell you? I'd say yes.

Should I have to spend a year in prison for it?

Hell no.

If you didn't actually spread the disease then as abhorrent as I find your behavior, the issue is moot because you haven't actually given the disease to somebody else.

However, if you did transfer the disease because you hid the truth from somebody then yes, you should go to jail, and for a hell of a lot longer than a year if you gave somebody HIV.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:44 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Spiritual_Chaos

Well it does affect you for the rest of your life, unlke other STDs.

If you think every other STD out there goes away after a while and never has long lasting effects, you really need to do a bit of research.

Gonorrhea can kill. HPV can lead to cancer.
Nerazar
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:45 PM)

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

The last part is exactly the reason why these laws are more harmful in the end. It incentivizes not getting tested at all while still porking.

Then we would have to make such tests mandatory at some point as part of a general medical check-up. But it should be a very rare situation that people will just never visit a doctor and still get treated. Because treatment is only possible after a diagnosis. And after you get diagnosed, willfully infecting other people is not a whoopsie-daisy, but a very serious crime. The actual number of cases should still be very low and I also don't think more people will start doing that if it's not a felony, but such behavior has to be punished in some way. And I would prefer harsher punishments for such acts, because the consequences are dire for the victims.
Ombra
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:45 PM)
Ombra's Avatar

Originally Posted by malyce

GAF is a really weird fucking place that at times seems really disconnected from the outside world. If you have the disease, you should let the other person know. Educate them if need be, but let THEM make that choice. Fuck your feelings. You don't get to make that decision for them no matter how treatable the disease is.

I agree with this 100%. For someone to find out a week later they slept with someone with aids who didn't think they needed to tell them. Should they go get tested?
ElfArmy177
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:47 PM)
ElfArmy177's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

If you think every other STD out there goes away after a while and never has long lasting effects, you really need to do a bit of research.

Gonorrhea can kill. HPV can lead to cancer.

Correction. Some hpv has been linked to cancer, though many have it and never get cancer. Gonorrhea is treated easily. HIV... Is not curable, unable to be vaccinated against and the drugs to manage it so you don't uh... die from an absent immune system are expensive as hell and have other side effects.

If you have HIV, you should be required by law to let the person know. if you can't handle the fact that you made bad decisions yourself and didn't protect yourself... Don't go around destroying someone else's life because you fucked yours up.
Last edited by ElfArmy177; 10-07-2017 at 07:49 PM.
VeeP
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:48 PM)
VeeP's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

All are serious diseases that should be taken seriously.

All are serious diseases, yes. All should be taken seriously, yes. Are some of those curable or have vaccines? Yes. Is HIV one of them? No.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:50 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Please quote the people in this thread who are in favor of people willingly infecting other people with HIV.

It remains a felony to do that. No one in this thread is advocating for that to change, or defending the people that willingly infect.

Having HIV and not telling somebody is, at the very least, depraved indifference, especially if that person actually becomes infected.

Apparently, because HIV is not an automatic death sentence, you feel that it's not that big a deal to potentially infect people but I very much disagree.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:50 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElfArmy177

Wtf is wrong with some of you??? HIV is NOTHING Like other STDs... Jesus christ

Please update your knowledge.

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

If you didn't actually spread the disease then as abhorrent as I find your behavior, the issue is moot because you haven't actually given the disease to somebody else.

However, if you did transfer the disease because you hid the truth from somebody then yes, you should go to jail, and for a hell of a lot longer than a year if you gave somebody HIV.

This law has been used to send people to prison that didn't infect the person they slept with. As I keep saying *expose* != *infect*. If you want to argue for a law about cases where someone was infected, go for it. The law that was changed wasn't that. It has been changed because risk of infection has massively reduced in cases where people know they have the disease compared to those that don't.

If you aren't infectious, why should you spend a year or more in prison for having sex with someone and not mentioning your disease? You shouldn't. Even if its 'AIDS!!!!'
Hickbilly Deluxe
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:50 PM)
Hickbilly Deluxe's Avatar

Originally Posted by FStubbs

I think it should be a felony along with any other STD. The other person has a right to know that they are risking their health by having sex with you.

If your opinion is anything other than this, you are wrong. Period, end of story. Its not up to you to decode if you get to risk someone elses health, its up to them.
ElfArmy177
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:52 PM)
ElfArmy177's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Please update your knowledge.



This law has been used to send people to prison that didn't infect the person they slept with. As I keep saying *expose* != *infect*. If you want to argue for a law about cases where someone was infected, go for it. The law that was changed wasn't that. It has been changed because risk of infection has massively reduced in cases where people know they have the disease compared to those that don't.

If you aren't infectious, why should you spend a year or more in prison for having sex with someone and not mentioning your disease? You shouldn't. Even if its 'AIDS!!!!'

I don't need to update my knowledge, I've worked with infectious diseases and did a capstone paper on HIV and other STDs. People putting them in the same category are.. not educated on the subject. Sorry.. :/
Irishmantis
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:53 PM)
Irishmantis's Avatar
What are the expense of these meds?
What are short term and long term effects of these meds?
What if the person as an auto immune disease?
Last edited by Irishmantis; 10-07-2017 at 07:55 PM.
conpfreak
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:54 PM)
conpfreak's Avatar
Whether you viral load is undetectable or not, from a moral standpoint you should disclose to your partner that you are HIV positive due to the potential risk of infection. Viral blips happen for some people due to failure of adherence to meds and other factors. Should someone be criminally liable if they knowingly expose someone to HIV? No, unless you know you aren't undetectable or aren't using protection yet choose to not inform your partner of the potential risk with malicious intent. Basically, if you know you are "infectious" yet intentionally fail to disclose and your partner gains knowledge of this, there should be some legal (civil) liability for that should any harm (infection) occurs. All other scenarios, nope.

Some responsibility has to be on the negative partner in a serodiscordant encounter to demand protection be used, verify their partner's status before sex, or ensure partner is undetectable. Outside of that this will never be an issue because the risk is virtually eliminated. Don't expect the legal system to seek revenge for irresponsibility.
prophetvx
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:54 PM)

Originally Posted by plagiarize

If you think every other STD out there goes away after a while and never has long lasting effects, you really need to do a bit of research.

Gonorrhea can kill. HPV can lead to cancer.

Some forms of HPV can lead to cancer, not all, and it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

Gonorrhea for the most part is easily treatable except for drug resistant forms emerging now.

HIV, if infected condemns you to a lifetime of hundreds of thousands in pharmaceutical bills, bans you from travel or immigration to many countries and isn't curable at this point in time. Who gives a shit if your viral load is zero, you have a responsibility to tell anyone you have sex with that while the risk may be negligible, you do have an STD of significance.

I'm unsure what to think of this law change, I don't think people avoid getting tested just so they don't want to get imprisoned for giving it to other people. It's fear, fear of a deadly, expensive disease.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:55 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElfArmy177

Correction. Some hpv has been linked to cancer, though many have it and never get cancer. Gonorrhea is treated easily. HIV... Is not curable, unable to be vaccinated against and the drugs to manage it so you don't uh... die from an absent immune system are expensive as hell and have other side effects.

If you have HIV, you should be required by law to let the person know. if you can't handle the fact that you made bad decisions yourself and didn't protect yourself... Don't go around destroying someone else's life because you fucked yours up.

I didn't say HPV gives you cancer. I said it can lead to cancer. Which it can. So no correction. Gonorrhea still kills people, even though it is very uncommon these days.

HIV when treated properly is not communicable or life impacting. Yes the treatment is expensive. Yes it is still a serious disease we should be trying to limit the spread of.

But, it is still illegal to knowingly expose people to it in California. Now it isn't treated more seriously than knowingly exposing someone to malaria or avian bird flu.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:56 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Please update your knowledge.



This law has been used to send people to prison that didn't infect the person they slept with. As I keep saying *expose* != *infect*. If you want to argue for a law about cases where someone was infected, go for it. The law that was changed wasn't that. It has been changed because risk of infection has massively reduced in cases where people know they have the disease compared to those that don't.

If you aren't infectious, why should you spend a year or more in prison for having sex with someone and not mentioning your disease? You shouldn't. Even if its 'AIDS!!!!'

I agree the law should be modified so that punishment would happen only if a person was actually infected.

That seems more than reasonable.

That said, anyone - regardless of their viral count or the drugs they are on - who would engage in unprotected sex with another person and not inform them of their HIV status prior to intercourse is fucking scum.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:57 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElfArmy177

I don't need to update my knowledge, I've worked with infectious diseases and did a capstone paper on HIV and other STDs. People putting them in the same category are.. not educated on the subject. Sorry.. :/

Why was the penalty for exposing people to it higher than exposing people to malaria or avian bird flu?

Why was HIV in a higher category than diseases like those?
Complistic
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:57 PM)
Complistic's Avatar
That's fucked up. Glad I don't live there.
ShironRedshift
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:59 PM)
ShironRedshift's Avatar
Good. HIV should NOT be treated any differently from any other illness. That HIV is singled out as a felony when other diseases aren't are vestigial remnants of homophobia and the HIV panic of the 80's. There's absolutely zero reason that HIV specifically should be singled out and treated any differently from anything else.

From my understanding, ALL this law does is CORRECT that imbalance and now treats HIV just like any other illness. It's still illicit to "knowingly expose someone to HIV," it's just a MISDEMEANOR instead of a FELONY, like everything else. The article is verily clumsily worded, so I'm not sure if that's correct, but if I'm right and that's what it does, just putting HIV on the level of *everything else* instead of *above and beyond it*, that is definitely a very positive change.

Originally Posted by GregLombardi

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is people who have HIV, aren't properly treating themselves, and then having unprotected sex with unknowing participants and never telling them they are positive and are still detectable. Or, like that story out of the UK recently, purposefully finding men to have sex with on grindr in order to give them HIV.

As a person with a horse in this race, I think it is horrifying that someone can expose you to HIV without saying something and have no consequences.

It's odd that you realize that this is indeed a problem but don't realize how laws like this contribute to this problem. Like, the second paragraph doesn't flow from this at all.

Indeed, there's a problem that some with HIV don't seek treatment. The thing is, to seek treatment, you have to know you're infected to seek treatment. Problem being, these laws de-facto criminalize that knowledge (or rather, it criminalizes them having any type of sexual relations after they obtain that knowledge, since the laws criminalize *exposure* to HIV, not just infection. And any sex carries some chance, no matter how slight, of exposure, regardless of whether infection occurs or not. So due to these laws, once you know you have HIV, any sex you have with anyone becomes criminal). The key bit is that you can only be prosecuted if you "knowingly expose" someone to HIV. Key word being "knowingly." Can't be prosecuted if you don't know if you're infected or not. And if you don't know you're infected, of course you're not going to be seeking treatment since a.) why would you get something you don't need and b.) if you somehow get your hands on treatment despite not being *formally* diagnosed, that's just tacitly admitting that you know you likely have HIV regardless and opening yourself up to these laws.

These issues are interlinked with each other. It's just odd to me to see someone that understands that there's a problem among parts of the LGBT community of not seeking treatment for HIV, but not connecting how laws like this play a role in that and leads to that happening.
Last edited by ShironRedshift; 10-07-2017 at 08:12 PM.
Brock Reiher
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:59 PM)
Brock Reiher's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Why was the penalty for exposing people to it higher than exposing people to malaria or avian bird flu?

Why was HIV in a higher category than diseases like those?

Man how would you even expose someone to malaria

Even if you got malaria you'll feel like you had the worst hangover of your life for like an hour until you get some malarone and Motrin and you're good.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:00 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

I didn't say HPV gives you cancer. I said it can lead to cancer. Which it can. So no correction. Gonorrhea still kills people, even though it is very uncommon these days.

HIV when treated properly is not communicable or life impacting. Yes the treatment is expensive. Yes it is still a serious disease we should be trying to limit the spread of.

But, it is still illegal to knowingly expose people to it in California. Now it isn't treated more seriously than knowingly exposing someone to malaria or avian bird flu.

Really?

Having to be on meds the rest of your life to keep the virus at bay isn't life-impacting?

Needing a lifetime supply of expensive medication doesn't alter one's trajectory just a bit?

Also, anyone who would knowingly expose somebody to something as dangerous as malaria or tuberculosis is also a horrific example of a human being.
royalan
Lotus Member
(10-07-2017, 08:02 PM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by privitsan02



Good grief this post.

But the post is technically correct.

Argument about whether or not it should be a felony aside, you are responsible for your own sexual health. It is up to you to make sure the appropriate level of precaution is taken when you engage in consensual sex.

As for this law, I feel like people are getting hung up on the idea that lowering this from a felony to a misdemeanor is somehow giving people the green light to go engage in reckless and unprotected sex. I actually think there's more value here in engaging the stigma surrounding HIV that keeps people from knowing their status in the first place.

We just had the same debate over PrEP.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:02 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

Really?

Having to be on meds the rest of your life to keep the virus at bay isn't life-impacting?

Needing a lifetime supply of expensive medication doesn't alter one's trajectory just a bit?

Also, anyone who would knowingly expose somebody to something as dangerous as malaria or tuberculosis is also a horrific example of a human being.

Awkward wording on my part. I meant that it doesn't effect your day to day health. I did point out that treatment was expensive.
L4DANathan
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:04 PM)
L4DANathan's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

It is totally unreasonable.

So I can knowingly expose you to something worse and more infectious, and that's not a problem?

Of course it is.

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.

There are so many strawmen in this thread that I think it's a fire hazard.
Poor GRIMES
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:06 PM)
Poor GRIMES's Avatar

Originally Posted by royalan

But the post is technically correct.

Argument about whether or not it should be a felony aside, you are responsible for your own sexual health. It is up to you to make sure the appropriate level of precaution is taken when you engage in consensual sex.

As for this law, I feel like people are getting hung up on the idea that lowering this from a felony to a misdemeanor is somehow giving people the green light to go engage in reckless and unprotected sex. I actually think there's more value here in engaging the stigma surrounding HIV that keeps people from knowing their status in the first place.

We just had the same debate over PrEP.

To be fair, PReP users have the tendency to engage in reckless and unprotected sex because of the assumption that HIV is the only deadly illness. Some LGBT+ people are ignorant about other STDs because the community, as a whole, is laser focused on the treatment of HIV that some don’t take a pause to consider the other ones.

Further decriminlization of willingly exposing someone to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor should hopefully allow people to understand that other forms of STDs are just as deadly as HIV if untreated.

Also, I’m curious about how the stigma towards HIV leads to people not willing to get tested? Wouldn’t the reverse lead less people to test for HIV had the stigma not been there to begin with?
Last edited by Poor GRIMES; 10-07-2017 at 08:13 PM.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:07 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by ShironRedshift

Good. HIV should NOT be treated any differently from any other illness. That HIV is singled out as a felony when other diseases aren't are vestigial remnants of homophobia and the HIV panic of the 80's. There's absolutely zero reason that HIV specifically should be singled out and treated any differently from anything else.

From my understanding, ALL this law does is CORRECT that imbalance and now treats HIV just like any other illness. It's still illicit to "knowingly expose someone to HIV," it's just a MISDEMEANOR instead of a FELONY, like everything else. The article is verily clumsily worded, so I'm not sure if that's correct, but if I'm right and that's what it does, just putting HIV on the level of *everything else* instead of *above and beyond it*, that is definitely a very positive change.

It's odd that you realize that this is indeed a problem but don't realize how laws like this contribute to this problem. Like, the second paragraph doesn't flow from this at all.

Indeed, there's a problem that some with HIV don't seek treatment. The thing is, to seek treatment, you have to know you're infected to seek treatment. Problem being, these laws de-facto criminalize that knowledge (or rather, it criminalizes them having any type of sexual relations after they obtain that knowledge, since the laws criminalize *exposure* to HIV, not just infection. And any sex carries some chance, no matter how slight, of exposure, regardless of whether infection occurs or not. So due to these laws, once you know you have HIV, any sex you have with anyone becomes criminal). The key bit is that you can only be prosecuted if you "knowingly expose" someone to HIV. Key word being "knowingly." Can't be prosecuted if you don't know if you're infected or not. And if you don't know you're infected, of course you're not going to be seeking treatment since a.) why would you get something you don't need and b.) if you somehow get your hands on PrEP or something despite not being *formally* diagnosed, that's just tacitly admitting that you know you likely have HIV regardless and opening yourself up to these laws.

These issues are interlinked with each other. It's just odd to me to see someone that understands that there's a problem among parts of the LGBT community of not seeking treatment for HIV, but not connecting how laws like this play a role in that and leads to that happening.

But correct me if I'm wrong, the law only criminalizes a sex act if you don't disclose the illness to your partner, correct?

If they consent, it's not a crime.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:08 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by L4DANathan

There are so many strawmen in this thread that I think it's a fire hazard.

Please clarify what I posted that was a strawman.

The original law singled out HIV as the only communicable disease that would get you a felony charge for knowingly exposing people to.

Not the only sexually transmitted disease... the only communicable disease.

I can see someone making a case as to why HIV should be treated more harshly than other STDs... but more harshly than any other communicable disease period?

No. I don't see the case there.

People decrying this are focusing on cases where the disease was spread, where the person intentionally infected the other person or only comparing HIV to other sexually transmitted diseases.

The law that was changed said nothing about whether the disease was spread.
The law that was changed did nothing to downgrade the punishment for trying to infect someone else with HIV.
The law that was changed brought HIV in line with every other disease, and not just other STDs.
The law that was changed did not stop it being illegal to knowingly expose someone to HIV without telling them.

So please... tell me where the straw man in my post was.
Last edited by plagiarize; 10-07-2017 at 08:14 PM.
Froli
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:09 PM)
Froli's Avatar
WHAT...THE FUCK.

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

If someone got treated for HIV, found out they have it, and neglected to tell their partners. The risk is on YOU. You chose to have sex with that person. Anytime you have sex with someone, you're taking a risk (and not just HIV, either) and it's not THEIR job to inform YOU on their status.

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.





Agreed

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to any form of STD without telling them – even one that is as benign as herpes – is a piece of shit.

Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:10 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Awkward wording on my part. I meant that it doesn't effect your day to day health. I did point out that treatment was expensive.

But HIV still does become full blown AIDS for some, even with treatment, right?

People are still dying from AIDS, right?

What are the statistics with treatment at this point? Is the issue longevity? Does the virus eventually kill you in the long run, even after decades of treatment?
Bold One
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:10 PM)
Bold One's Avatar
The level of sociopathy on display is fucking staggering.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:12 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

But HIV still does become full blown AIDS for some, even with treatment, right?

People are still dying from AIDS, right?

What are the statistics with treatment at this point? Is the issue longevity? Does the virus eventually kill you in the long run, even after decades of treatment?

Yes, people are still dying of AIDS. Yes, the treatment doesn't work as well for some people.

Evidence suggests people with an undetectable viral load live average lifespans. I'm not sure what the leading cause of their eventual deaths are, and I'm not sure that we really have the data yet to know for certain... but the current scientific consensus is that you live a normal life with an undetectable viral load.

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

But correct me if I'm wrong, the law only criminalizes a sex act if you don't disclose the illness to your partner, correct?

If they consent, it's not a crime.

The previous law did only make it a felony if you didn't disclose, yes.
Kebiinu
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:13 PM)
Kebiinu's Avatar

Originally Posted by privitsan02



Good grief this post.

It's okay, you don't understand my point, let me break it down even further.

You get tested, you have HIV, it's undetectable since you caught it early. Fast forward, you're at a bar, you meet this chick and y'all hit it off. Seems like its gearing towards a one night stand, she's at your place and you're pulling out a condom, while she undresses. Do you:

A) Stop and say, "Before we do this, I need to tell you that I'm undetectable with HIV; and I wanted to give you the option.

B) Stop and say, "Are you clean?" she answers "Yes, are you?" you go, "Yes." strap up, and sex away.

C) Strap on and sex away.

If you answered A, congrats. If you answered B, well... If C, then shame on you. All answers are correct, however. Sexual consent is just that, sexual consent. When you consent to sex, you're consenting to the risks that come with it.

Don't expect someone to "morally object" to shit, because more often than not, people don't give a fuck. So you can only protect yourself. Criminalizing STD's with jail time will just make people NOT get tested so they DON'T deliver their status, further spreading their disease that they can (later) feign ignorance on. Since they never got tested to begin with.

Breaking it down even more, it takes two to tango. If you consent to sex, you consent to the risks YOU decided to take by sleeping with this stranger/lover/whatever.

Sure, at the end of the day, both parties are at fault. But you can't expect someone else to take care of your own health, feel me? Take charge of your health. If you have trust issues, don't have sex. If you want to see papers of their STD results, request them. Don't be naive.

Also, y'all are really blowing this "Intentionally spreading HIV" way out of proportion. It's fear mongering (further stemming from the stigmas of HIV); as cases where people intentionally spread HIV with intent to harm the victim, are incredibly rare.
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
(10-07-2017, 08:13 PM)
MrOogieBoogie's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElfArmy177

As a nurse who has worked with infectious diseases. You are incredibly wrong. Infact certain strains of hepatitis are actually curable. Hpv and syphilis are NOWHERE near the danger of hiv.. jesus

Edit: don't spread false information on things you have no clue about unless you're actually in a medical field, work with diseases, or a damn scientist.. we already got arm chair lawyers on the internet, let's not introduce arm chair scientists now

What is the most prevalent infectious disease you encounter at work day-to-day?
Last edited by MrOogieBoogie; 10-07-2017 at 08:18 PM.
Mr. X
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:14 PM)
Mr. X's Avatar
Wow, sex ed really did a number on people.
royalan
Lotus Member
(10-07-2017, 08:15 PM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Poor GRIMES

To be fair, PReP users have the tendency to engage in reckless and unprotected sex because of the assumption that HIV is the only deadly illness. Some LGBT+ people are ignorant about other STDs because the community, as a whole, is laser focused on the treatment of HIV that some don’t take a pause to consider the other ones.

Further decriminlization of willingly exposing someone to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor should hopefully allow people to understand that other forms of HIV are just as deadly as HIV if untreated.

Also, I’m curious about how the stigma towards HIV leading to people not willing to get tested? Wouldn’t the reverse lead less people to test for HIV had the stigma not been there to begin with?

The idea is that the big boogieman fear of possibly having contracted HIV leads to people not wanting to confront the possibility that they might have it, particularly if they have engaged in unprotected sex. Getting tested becomes this dreaded thing that you just don't want to do, and so some don't. But these same people don't necessarily stop having sex. "Combating the fear of getting tested" was definitely a talking point back when I used to volunteer with an LGBT friendly clinic when I was in college.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:16 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Yes, people are still dying of AIDS. Yes, the treatment doesn't work as well for some people.

Evidence suggests people with an undetectable viral load live average lifespans. I'm not sure what the leading cause of their eventual deaths are, and I'm not sure that we really have the data yet to know for certain... but the current scientific consensus is that you live a normal life with an undetectable viral load.



The previous law did only make it a felony if you didn't disclose, yes.

Then shouldn't the law be that you should disclose it and if you don't and somebody actually becomes infected, it's a crime?

Not for exposure but for actually saddling somebody with HIV because you opted to not tell them.

Is that more reasonable?
skullmuffins
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:16 PM)
skullmuffins's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

But correct me if I'm wrong, the law only criminalizes a sex act if you don't disclose the illness to your partner, correct?

If they consent, it's not a crime.

Yes, and it's also about intentional transmission. If you are taking steps to prevent transmission, such as following a medical regimen that reduces infectiousness, then you are not guilty of breaking the law, even if you didn't inform your partner of your HIV positive status.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:17 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

Then shouldn't the law be that you should disclose it and if you don't and somebody actually becomes infected, it's a crime?

Not for exposure but for actually saddling somebody with HIV because you opted to not tell them.

Is that more reasonable?

That *is* the law.

It's still a crime.

It's just no longer the only communicable disease you can expose someone to without telling them that gets you a felony.
Poor GRIMES
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:17 PM)
Poor GRIMES's Avatar

Originally Posted by royalan

The idea is that the big boogieman fear of possibly having contracted HIV leads to people not wanting to confront the possibility that they might have it, particularly if they have engaged in unprotected sex. Getting tested becomes this dreaded thing that you just don't want to do, and so some don't. But these same people don't necessarily stop having sex. "Combating the fear of getting tested" was definitely a talking point back when I used to volunteer with an LGBT friendly clinic when I was in college.

Oh, I see. The fear becomes denial, leading to some people not willing to go through with testing because they’d rather live their lives ignorant of them possibily having the disease themselves. I had no idea that mentality was prevalent enough for clinics to consider that. Thank you.
Last edited by Poor GRIMES; 10-07-2017 at 08:20 PM.
Kin5290
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:19 PM)
Kin5290's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

This doesn't seem like a great idea.

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



Is it?

Post exposure prophylaxis is pretty effective.

That said, intent is basically impossible to prove, so....

Thread Tools