• 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

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.

Great, so in the rare instances when it actually happens, let's have a law of some sort in place that throws the fucking book at these pieces of shit when they opt to not tell somebody they have a potentially lethal disease but decide to get their fuck-on anyway.
 
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.

But shouldn't giving somebody HIV on purpose or because of indifference be a felony?

And maybe add a few more diseases to that law because any such behavior is abysmal.
 

royalan

Member
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 prevelant enough for clinics to consider that. Thank you.

Exactly.

It's a fear I can certainly relate to. I've gotten tested regularly since I became sexually active at 18. But the HARDEST time I had walking through those doors was the time I went to get tested after an incident where I had drunkenly engaged in unprotected sex. I looked for every excuse to put it off.
 

VeeP

Member
Post exposure prophylaxis is pretty effective.

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

PEP would mostly apply to health care workers, no? In this case, I can't imagine someone having unprotected sex then going "oh yea, I have HIV" and then getting PEP.

But yea I think I remember reading that it greatly reduced the chance of HIV from needle stick injuries and the like.
 

Kebiinu

Banned
Great, so in the rare instances when it actually happens, let's have a law of some sort in place that throws the fucking book at these pieces of shit when they opt to not tell somebody they have a potentially lethal disease but decide to get their fuck-on anyway.

I agree :)

This bill itself is not the end all be all, but it's a step in a good direction.
 

zelas

Member
Not sure if serious.

Because I mean, you've basically just said it should be illegal to go the Doctors when you have a cold.
For most people colds aren't going to cut decades off of their lifespan without treatment.

So basically you just said HIV and cold viruses are equally consequential. Even the lawmakers supporting this still acknowledge HIV as a SERIOUS infectious disease.
 
But shouldn't giving somebody HIV on purpose or because of indifference be a felony?

And maybe add a few more diseases to that law because any such behavior is abysmal.
Write an exception for anyone with an undetectable viral load and put together a sensible list of diseases and we can talk. It shouldn't even be considered exposing someone to HIV to sleep with someone with an undetectable viral load imho.
 
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.

So are we 100% that such a regime means getting the disease from sex is impossible?

If not, why the hell wouldn't we expect/require the infected party to inform their partner?

Wouldn't you want to know?

I sure as hell would.
 
Exactly.

It's a fear I can certainly relate to. I've gotten tested regularly since I became sexually active at 18. But the HARDEST time I had walking through those doors was the time I went to get tested after an incident where I had drunkenly engaged in unprotected sex. I looked for every excuse to put it off.
I think further education about HIV and having more resources for people with the disease would do very well to decrease the panic in at-risk populations. I can agree with your experience too; the hardest part about getting tested is the first time you walk through those doors at the clinic. Greater accessibility to testing would be great as well.
 

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
The article's use of "current law" is ambiguous. The bill is here, and it looks to me like it was a felony and the new law changes it to a misdemeanor, in line with how the state charges intentional transmission of any other disease.

This is how it should be.

If you intentionally set out to infect someone with HIV, or any other disease, there's already laws covering this. This law in the US singles out HIV and really now it shouldn't. It's arguable that it ever should have been singled out.
 
For most people colds aren't going to cut decades off of their lifespan without treatment.

So basically you just said HIV and cold viruses are equally consequential. Even the lawmakers supporting this still acknowledge HIV as a SERIOUS infectious disease.
Pneumonia kills far more people every year than HIV. Again put forwards an argument that HIV is the worst communicable disease period and maybe I'll listen, but no one in this thread has done anything approaching that.

And of course I acknowledge HIV as a serious disease we want to stop the spread of.
 
Write an exception for anyone with an undetectable viral load and put together a sensible list of diseases and we can talk. It shouldn't even be considered exposing someone to HIV to sleep with someone with an undetectable viral load imho.

So does an undetectable load mean there is no chance whatsoever of transference of the virus during sex?
 
So are we 100% that such a regime means getting the disease from sex is impossible?

If not, why the hell wouldn't we expect/require the infected party to inform their partner?

Wouldn't you want to know?

I sure as hell would.
We are 100% that if you have an undetectable viral load that the risk of getting the HIV virus during sex is non existent.

Its a key distinction. If someone was undetectable I wouldn't personally care but then I'd be using condoms anyway.
 
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.
Yes, and the new law also explicitly says that taking a drug regimen or doing any other scientifically and medically valid thing to reduce the chance of infection means you aren't guilty, while the old law was just concerned with whether a condom was used.
 

Syriel

Member
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.

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.

Attitudes like this are sociopathic. There is no such thing as "zero" chance of infection with treatment, as there is no cure. It is extremely unlikely, but there is still a chance.

Putting someone else's life at risk simply because you want to get your rocks off is an act of extreme selfishness.

Disclosure is the only moral way. If your partner is still game, then go to town.
 

sjboi

Member
If you are HIV positive and are out there fucking people without disclosing your status, you are a bad person and bad things should happen to you. This has happened to me and a few of my friends btw (we are gay), it’s not remotely uncommon. This is why truvada for prep is a necessity in 2017, a lot of people are just horrible humans. Also if you’re “undetectable” so what, are you undetectable at that very moment or were you undetectable at your last doctor’s visit? There’s a difference. Did you forget to take your meds this morning? Too much gray area, disclosure should be a requirement.
 
I can fully get behind the trepidation about singling this disease out given the way people have treated it as a plague from God used to punish the gays. (Some people still push this narrative)

It is also very encouraging to know that the progression of treatment has come so far.

Maybe at some point soon, we’ll be able to eradicate it entirely.
 
We are 100% that if you have an undetectable viral load that the risk of getting the HIV virus during sex is non existent.

Its a key distinction. If someone was undetectable I wouldn't personally care but then I'd be using condoms anyway.

See, now that's something I didn't know.

And kudos for wearing protection.

It's crazy that anyone this day and age has unprotected sex with strangers.
 
Attitudes like this are sociopathic. There is no such thing as "zero" chance of infection with treatment, as there is no cure. It is extremely unlikely, but there is still a chance.

Putting someone else's life at risk simply because you want to get your rocks off is an act of extreme selfishness.

Disclosure is the only moral way. If your partner is still game, then go to town.
I'm a sociopath because I believe the CDC? Okay.
 

royalan

Member
If you are HIV positive and are out there fucking people without disclosing your status, you are a bad person and bad things should happen to you. This has happened to me and a few of my friends btw (we are gay), it’s not remotely uncommon. This is why truvada for prep is a necessity in 2017, a lot of people are just horrible humans. Also if you’re “undetectable” so what, are you undetectable at that very moment or were you undetectable at your last doctor’s visit? There’s a difference. Did you forget to take your meds this morning? Too much gray area, disclosure should be a requirement.

As a fellow gay person, I agree that people going out and having unprotected sex knowing they are positive are pretty terrible.

...but, you should also be using condoms.
 
Attitudes like this are sociopathic. There is no such thing as "zero" chance of infection with treatment, as there is no cure. It is extremely unlikely, but there is still a chance.

Putting someone else's life at risk simply because you want to get your rocks off is an act of extreme selfishness.

Disclosure is the only moral way. If your partner is still game, then go to town.

I agree that disclosure is the only moral choice but the more difficult question is when should the government and the law intervene?

It's a complicated issue and I'm actually glad I had the chance to learn a bit more about both sides of the equation.
 

pixelation

Member
This is wrong on so many levels. The quality of life of a person with HIV is not even close to that of a person who does not have HIV. Also HIV medicine is expensive and not readily available for everyone... i am not in favor of this.
 
It's a misdemeanor for all the others. Now it will also be a misdemeanor for HIV.

Except that's not what I said.
Make it criminal for all of them.

Your main arguments seem to be based around:
1) Others aren't criminalized, so decriminalize this.
2) Other things are worse
3) Repeating "undetectable viral load" over and over and over and over again.

No.
Try making a post without those three things.
If you can't, then there's really nothing worth discussing.


lmao

Good luck making every possible case of STD transmission a crime in today's world.

Oh, ok, so because we can't be perfect, we should give up? Got it.

And a huge majority of people have no idea that they're infected with something.

Well then, good thing that's not what this thread is about.
This thread is about knowingly doing it.
 

Kebiinu

Banned
Attitudes like this are sociopathic. There is no such thing as "zero" chance of infection with treatment, as there is no cure. It is extremely unlikely, but there is still a chance.

Putting someone else's life at risk simply because you want to get your rocks off is an act of extreme selfishness.

Disclosure is the only moral way. If your partner is still game, then go to town.

There is no such thing as "zero" chance of transmitting STDs through sex, either. You're putting your health at risk EVERY time you have sex. Which is the point that you missed. But I'll be a sociopath, if it means that I'll take you on a date to the clinic, rather than believe your "I'm tested and clean." disclosure...

Celibacy is the only surefire way to avoid STDs. But nobody wants to do that, yeah? So don't fucking cry if you got pricked by a thorn bush you thought was a rose.
 
Celibacy is the only surefire way to avoid STDs. But nobody wants to do that, yeah? So don't fucking cry if you got pricked by a thorn bush you thought was a rose.

1) Some people do just that (remain celibate).
2) What a terrible analogy. I agree with the previous poster's assessment.


...it's not being decriminalized, tho...

Alright:
"The logic failures of some people here, suggesting to reduce the consideration of HIV vis-à-vis other STDs, as opposed to increasing the consideration of other STDs, is astounding."
 

moeman

Member
Pneumonia is way more lethal than HIV and is caused by the common flu virus. If you have ever knowingly exposed people to flu, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

The major causative pathogen of pneumonia, strep pneumoniae, is a bacteria. Influenza virus has a negligible effect on pneumonia.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Exposing aids and giving aids could be two different meaning that could form a middle ground for the argument.

Exposing aids sounds like it just means exposing but not possibly infecting. You also got dumb shit prosecuted like someone not even having physical contact yet (which I hope was dropped.

Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking.

So it should literally be infecting someone. That soothes the fears of people worried about people giving people aids on purpose while at the same time the "under medicine there is a 0% chance of affecting a person people" will be taken care of because if what they are saying is true, than it would be 0% possible that anyone getting treatment would pass it on.
 

nkarafo

Member
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.
I can't believe i'm reading this. Maybe i'm indeed stuck in the 90's. But even so why would anyone want this in their lives? And how much does that treatment cost?
 
Pneumonia kills far more people every year than HIV. Again put forwards an argument that HIV is the worst communicable disease period and maybe I'll listen, but no one in this thread has done anything approaching that.

And of course I acknowledge HIV as a serious disease we want to stop the spread of.

I see the point you are making but it's not exactly apples to be apples.

First, pneumonia is a condition arising from a infection. The transmission of any one fungi/bacteria/virus doesn't guarantee the onset of pneumonia. There is no pneumonia fungi/virus/bacteria.

Second, HIV infection requires lifelong treatment with unknown costs. A few quick search returns a ~36k per year treatment cost, another with ~375k lifetime cost. That's more than a child. A given infected person may not be able to afford this treatment or be covered by thier insurance.

Having said that, it's clear that this law disproportionately affects minority groups, so it's highly questionable as to it's efficacy. But I'm very hesitant to say that this shouldn't be a felony criminal offense given the burden of the victim.
 

royalan

Member
Alright:
"The logic failures of some people here, suggesting to reduce the consideration of HIV vis-à-vis other STDs, as opposed to increasing the consideration of other STDs, is astounding."

As someone who has actually worked in STD prevention and education, I think posts like these are naive. Laws like this do more to stigmatize STDs and encourage people to engage in risky behaviors than the other way around.
 
As someone who has actually worked in STD prevention and education, I think posts like these are naive. Laws like this do more to stigmatize STDs and encourage people to engage in risky behaviors than the other way around.

Yes, we should also increase STD prevention and education measures, and make identification and treatment measures more acceptable and affordable.
At the same time, people who have been diagnosed with STDs should disclose that when having sex with someone.
Doing one doesn't preclude doing the other.
 

XenodudeX

Junior Member
Attitudes like this are sociopathic. There is no such thing as "zero" chance of infection with treatment, as there is no cure. It is extremely unlikely, but there is still a chance.

Putting someone else's life at risk simply because you want to get your rocks off is an act of extreme selfishness.

Disclosure is the only moral way. If your partner is still game, then go to town.

The CDC disagrees with you.
 

pixelation

Member
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.

PREACH!!!
 

zelas

Member
Pneumonia kills far more people every year than HIV. Again put forwards an argument that HIV is the worst communicable disease period and maybe I'll listen, but no one in this thread has done anything approaching that.

And of course I acknowledge HIV as a serious disease we want to stop the spread of.
Where did I say HIV was the worst? You equated living with a cold to living with HIV. That's ridiculous and you need to admit it. You're now also fucking up making comparisons to pneumonia, a disease most people are able to get over by resting at home. A disease that has a fraction of the mortality rate of HIV related deaths. Am I going to get over HIV by going to bed with a glass of OJ??
 

royalan

Member
Yes, we should also increase STD prevention and education measures, and make identification and treatment measures more acceptable and affordable.
At the same time, people who have been diagnosed with STDs should disclose that when having sex with someone.
Doing one doesn't preclude doing the other.

Didn't say it did. Which is why intentional nondisclosure and engaging in unprotected sex is still a misdemeanor.
 

Nategc20

Banned
"Hey, sorry I got in late to work, I have a bit of a cold coming on."
"ARREST HIM!"
You willingly want to post that shit but in the gay community it's fucking ridiculous with HIV and how they view it. Especially with pep and prep, they treat it like a cold. Be mad, be angry about what I'm saying, but I have personally experienced my partner lie directly in my fucking face about his status and wanted me to get infected along with him so we could have some happy life. Im still negative thank God but that dude single handedly ruined at least 13 lives with HIV that I know of. Hes a frequent at the RAM manhole club in Chicago. God knows how many men he passed HIV to. This law is insane.
 
I see the point you are making but it's not exactly apples to be apples.

First, pneumonia is a condition arising from a infection. The transmission of any one fungi/bacteria/virus doesn't guarantee the onset of pneumonia. There is no pneumonia fungi/virus/bacteria.

Second, HIV infection requires lifelong treatment with unknown costs. A few quick search returns a ~36k per year treatment cost, another with ~375k lifetime cost. That's more than a child. A given infected person may not be able to afford this treatment or be covered by thier insurance.

Having said that, it's clear that this law disproportionately affects minority groups, so it's highly questionable as to it's efficacy. But I'm very hesitant to say that this shouldn't be a felony criminal offense given the burden of the victim.
The law didn't require transmission of the disease and people were charged with the felony in cases where no transmission took place.

People are clearly still very afraid of catching HIV. That doesn't excuse treating it as worse than every other communicable disease, and no one has argued successfully that it is the worst communicable disease.

They are just so scared of catching it that they think anyone with it who doesn't disclose should go to prison for at least a year. Irrespective of any risky behavior on their own part and irrespective of any steps the person with the virus is taking to ensure they aren't infectious.

But I guess I'm a sociopath for not being irrationally afraid of something.
 

antonz

Member
As someone who personally has watched someone waste away and die after getting HIV from someone who did not inform them. People who knowingly do so should be held accountable for the actions they undertook.

Education around falsehoods etc. should absolutely be enhanced but this is not a game. If your mind switched to lets do risky shit and spread it around because a law says its bad then you are not in a mental state to even be making such decisions and should be stopped.
 
Top Bottom