Support NeoGAF

[Earthbound64]

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease.

Quoting for posterity.

 

[Brock Reiher]

People are missing the damn point. It doesn't matter how good treatment is if you don't know you have the diseases because it wasnt disclosed to you.... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Some selfish people live on this planet

You're right of course, but why does it need to specifically be a felony?

 

[Nategc20]

Holyshit ITT people are defending the right for a pos person to not disclose their status because the disease is highly treatable. Damn fam.

Plagiarize would be a shitty HIV patient.

 

[titiklabingapat]

People are missing the damn point. It doesn't matter how good treatment is if you don't know you have the diseases because it wasnt disclosed to you.... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Some selfish people live on this planet

We are on the same page on that end. People really do forgo getting tested because of the stigma on the diagnosis itself and this change in the law is designed to prevent that. It's a known and documented thing.

This isn't some free for all 'go infect someone and multiply' edict.

 

[metalslimer]

Holyshit ITT people are defending the right for a pos person to not disclose their status because the disease is highly treatable. Damn fam.

I think the argument is being crossed here, People are saying that HIV should not be held to a special class of STD non disclosure because it is currently treatable and the law supposedly held HIV to higher standard because it was a death sentence. Knowingly infecting someone with HIV will be held to the same standard as other STDs. However it should not be illegal to merely not disclose your status if you are adherent to therapy and take all available precautions

 

[skullmuffins]

Holyshit ITT people are defending the right for a pos person to not disclose their status because the disease is highly treatable. Damn fam.

Plagiarize would be a shitty HIV patient.

no, he's saying it's OK not to disclose if your viral load is so low that you cannot transmit it to a partner.

 

[plagiarize]

"Effectively no risk" is not the same as "no risk" and you know that.

What I said, that transmission is extremely unlikely, but still possible, aligns with the CDC assessment.

No. It doesn't. It literally doesn't align with their current thoughts. They are no longer saying there is a small risk. Their current assessment is that there is effectively no risk, and I know exactly what that means in scientific terms thank you very much.

What you keep claiming, that transmission is impossible, contradicts with the CDC assessment.

If you are going to use the CDC as a source for your claim, then argue what the CDC states, not what you want the CDC to say.

And that claim is also dependent on 100% adhesion to taking meds on schedule. Deviating from said schedule (aka human error) can allow the viral load to increase.

If you're going to call me a fucking liar, then I expect better than out of date articles that do not reflect their stance as of September 2017. Heck I expect a fucking apology.

 

[ElfArmy177]

You're right of course, but why does it need to specifically be a felony?

Because untreated HIV which shows almost no symptoms leads to oh I don't know.. dying when you suddenly become septic from a common infection.

 

[Transhuman]

It feels like a big step forward for gay rights, and an even bigger step forward for people who want to deliberately infect someone with HIV out of spite.

 

[Nategc20]

no, he's saying it's OK not to disclose if your viral load is so low that you cannot transmit it to a partner.

Why would you not tell your sexual partner that you're HIV positive? I wonder.....

 

[titiklabingapat]

Because untreated HIV which shows almost no symptoms leads to oh I don't know.. dying when you suddenly become septic from a common infection.

And it being specifically targeted as a felony actually encourages some people from not getting tested at all and still continue boinking. You should know this.

 

[metalslimer]

Because untreated HIV which shows almost no symptoms leads to oh I don't know.. dying when you suddenly become septic from a common infection.

Once again your one case is not the determinant of public policy when the felony status hasn't been helpful for people to actually get tested

Anyway I will be very interested to follow the research that comes from this to see whether transmission goes up or down

 

[kunonabi]

Your emotional response to a case shouldn't affect public policy

Neither should misguided guilt.

 

[Frodo]

ITT (as in every other thread that discusses HIV) people still refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are less likely to be infected by someone HIV+ with a undetectable viral load (virtually impossible to transmit the virus) than someone that does not know their status.

 

[ElfArmy177]

And it being specifically targeted felony actually encourages some people from not getting tested at all and still continue boinking. You should know this.

I do agree with this which it's an unfortunate issue.. I'm not sure how to solve that... But there is still the issue of those who have it and don't give a damn about their partners health or safety...

 

[CDX]

No, we're making it seem like he is somehow ok with people not telling other people that they have been diagnosed with HIV.
Because that's what he's doing.




plagiarize

no, he's saying it's OK not to disclose if your viral load is so low that you cannot transmit it to a partner.

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

DAMN. That seems crazy to me.

Seemingly, not even the legislators in California believe that, because it's still a misdemeanor, just not a felony anymore.

 

[Brock Reiher]

Because untreated HIV which shows almost no symptoms leads to oh I don't know.. dying when you suddenly become septic from a common infection.

That doesn't answer my question. How does upgrading it to a felony help people disclose it? It does the opposite. So you should be for this change.

Unless of course you want to increase the chance that people die when they suddenly become septic from a common infection.

 

[jetjevons]

Isn’t HIV low risk of transmission if you’re not having unprotected vaginal or anal sex, or sharing a needle? Or am I woefully misinformed?

 

[plagiarize]

Isn’t HIV low risk of transmission if you’re not having unprotected vaginal or anal sex, or sharing a needle? Or am I woefully misinformed?

You aren't no. But I guess HIV is too scary for people to think rationally.

 

[Kebiinu]

Because untreated HIV which shows almost no symptoms leads to oh I don't know.. dying when you suddenly become septic from a common infection.

Your emotional bias is showing, I'm not sure if I should be taking you seriously. Lol. Are you really a nurse? Cause you have some adamant opinions on something that isn't as uniform as you think. Nobody should be going to jail for NOT disclosing their status, that's fucking ridiculous. Use a condom, get tested with them, trust them, or don't have sex.

Your health is on you and no one else.

However, if someone is intentionally spreading disease with intent to harm, that's a different topic entirely. If you don't know the difference, I don't know what to tell you

 

[titiklabingapat]

Isn't HIV low risk of transmission if you're not having unprotected vaginal or anal sex, or sharing a needle? Or am I woefully misinformed?

Yup. And the beauty of it? We have other tools now as well.

If you're HIV positive, then just continue taking your meds.

If you're negative and worried? You can also take PEP and PrEP.

You do all three? The risk is practically zero.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

So if they are having 0 sexual contact with people, ever. Right? Because anything else makes them a piece shit.

 

[Bold One]

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.

 

[titiklabingapat]

So if they are having 0 sexual contact with people, ever. Right? Because anything else makes them a piece shit.

Modern medicine, learn to use it.

 

[Mr.Monitor]

"if you trust someone, anything bad they do is on you, not them!"
man what a miserable way to look at things

 

[Occam]

In most European countries there are no specific laws regarding HIV. Instead, knowingly infecting others is treated as willful aggravated assault (which means a mandatory prison sentence if convicted). Makes sense to me.

 

[skullmuffins]

DAMN. That seems crazy to me.

Seemingly, not even the legislators in California believe that, because it's still a misdemeanor, just not a felony anymore.

no. with the new law, following a medical regimen to reduce your viral load is treated the same as wearing a condom - it's not criminal at all.

 

[titiklabingapat]

In most European countries there are no specific laws regarding HIV. Instead knowingly infecting others is treated as willful aggravated assault (which means a mandatory prison sentence if convicted). Makes sense to me.

As it should be.

 

[plagiarize]

So if they are having 0 sexual contact with people, ever. Right? Because anything else makes them a piece shit.

You should really look into recent studies on the risks of communicating the disease if you are receiving proper treatment and your viral load is undetectable.

Doing something that the CDC say has effectively zero risk of transmission doesn't make you a piece of shit. Whether that's using the same public toilet, sharing a tooth brush or having unprotected sex. If none of those things have risk of transmission, how are you a piece of shit for doing any?

And I get that for whatever reason people doubt the science on this. Personally I don't. If I see good science demonstrating it's not the case, you can be assured that my stance would change.

But someone being afraid that a certain behavior might transmit HIV isn't something we should be using as justification for putting people in prison.

But don't listen to me because I'm a sociopath and a liar.

 

[Double Donut]

You aren't no. But I guess HIV is too scary for people to think rationally.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to want to draw a line in the sand and stay away from any trace of a lifelong disease. Low risk is negligible, I wouldn’t want any risk at all.

 

[jetjevons]

Yup. And the beauty of it? We have other tools now as well.

If you're HIV positive, then just continue taking your meds.

If you're negative and worried? You can also take PEP and PrEP.

You do all three? The risk is pretty close to zero.

So if an individual is willing to have consensual unprotected sex with another individual, without knowing them very well, they’re opening themselves up to all KINDS of infectious possibilities. Not debating that it’s a shitty thing to risk giving an STD to someone when you KNOW you have it, but should it be a felony? I don’t know. Moral of the story: Stay safe, take responsibility, wrap it up (or ensure your man is wrapping it up).

 

[Syriel]

No. It doesn't. It literally doesn't align with their current thoughts. They are no longer saying there is a small risk. Their current assessment is that there is effectively no risk, and I know exactly what that means in scientific terms thank you very much.

If you're going to call me a fucking liar, then I expect better than out of date articles that do not reflect their stance as of September 2017. Heck I expect a fucking apology.

Doubling down on your misrepresentation doesn't make you correct.

ITT (as in every other thread that discusses HIV) people still refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are less likely to be infected by someone HIV+ with a undetectable viral load (virtually impossible to transmit the virus) than someone that does not know their status.

No one ITT is denying that.

The main point of contention (and the only reason this thread is going on) is because we have a poster who thinks that because the transmission risk is extremely low for someone under treatment, it's totally cool to lie about status to a partner because no harm, no foul. And hey, if they do get infected, they can just go on a super expensive ART regimen for the rest of their life!

Isn’t HIV low risk of transmission if you’re not having unprotected vaginal or anal sex, or sharing a needle? Or am I woefully misinformed?

You are not misinformed.

So if they are having 0 sexual contact with people, ever. Right? Because anything else makes them a piece shit.

No one is making that argument. All they have to do is disclose, and let their partner be fully informed.

The only thing that makes someone a piece of shit is lying about status/not disclosing to a partner so they can get laid.

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

In most European countries there are no specific laws regarding HIV. Instead knowingly infecting others is treated as willful aggravated assault (which means a mandatory prison sentence if convicted). Makes sense to me.

In sweden we have a law called "The Swedish Law for Communicable Disease Control". HIV is included in that.

 

[cyborgnumberblue]

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

Since there appears to be zero consensus as far as science is concerned, that risk can never be zero, thus disclosure should happen regardless...

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Modern medicine, learn to use it.

If you have HIV, I dont care what medications you are on or how strictly you follow it. If you dont disclose it to potential partners, youre a piece of shit. Same with ANY STD.

 

[Hesh]

I get that the origin of the law was rooted in anti-gay sentiment (lawmakers trying to punish the gay rapist bogeyman that apparently spreads HIV to straight victims), but this solution seems misguided. If you knowingly have an STD, have sex with someone without disclosing your STD and promptly spread it to that person then straight to jail you go. It doesn't matter if some STD's are "treatable" now, if you knowingly spread an STD to someone else without warning them in advance them you're purposely burdening someone else with the physiological, emotional, and financial repercussions of being infected with an STD and that makes you an enormous asshole that deserves to go to jail and have any future wages garnished to pay for all STD medical expenses of your victim at the very least.

 

[plagiarize]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to want to draw a line in the sand and stay away from any trace of a lifelong disease. Low risk is negligible, I wouldn’t want any risk at all.

I do. Just as I thought it was unreasonable for people to be afraid of catching AIDS from toilet seats.

Personally, I would disclose. Anyone that was so irrationally scared of the disease to not want to engage in an activity where they have no risk of catching it, well I'd probably lose any interest in them any way.

But for people with the HIV virus, who may well have it through no fault of their own (congenital HIV is a thing)... no I don't think they are obliged to tell anyone if indeed they don't pose them any risk.

 

[manakel]

I honestly can’t believe some of the responses in this thread. “If someone has an STD they shouldn’t have to disclose or they’d never get laid.” Fucking WHAT?! Are some of you that extremely selfish?

If someone knowingly has HIV and doesn’t disclose that, it should 100% be a felony. What a disgusting misdirection and step backward on California’s part. Yes, HIV does have a stigma and people are ignorant about the disease. That has nothing to do with this conversation in my opinion.

 

[titiklabingapat]

If you have HIV, I dont care what medications you are on or how strictly you follow it. If you dont disclose it to potential partners, youre a piece of shit. Same with ANY STD.

I did not say you that you should not disclose. You should. But it should not be a felony.

If they willingly and intentionally did it and it caused you harm by being infected that resulted in monetary and physical harm? Then by all means throw the books at them. The blanket criminalization is where my problem lies. If no one got infected, then it is essentially a victimless crime. This applies to any STDs.

I get that the origin of the law was rooted in anti-gay sentiment (lawmakers trying to punish the gay rapist bogeyman that apparently spreads HIV to straight victims), but this solution seems misguided. If you knowingly have an STD, have sex with someone without disclosing your STD and promptly spread it to that person then straight to jail you go. It doesn't matter if some STD's are "treatable" now, if you knowingly spread an STD to someone else without warning them in advance them you're purposely burdening someone else with the physiological, emotional, and financial repercussions of being infected with an STD and that makes you an enormous asshole that deserves to go to jail and have any future wages garnished to pay for all STD medical expenses of your victim at the very least.

See my post above.

 

[plagiarize]

Doubling down on your misrepresentation doesn't make you correct.

You called me a liar. You were totally out of order to do so as I have clearly demonstrated. Take your own words onboard and apologize.

 

[Ri'Orius]

If you have HIV, I dont care what medications you are on or how strictly you follow it. If you dont disclose it to potential partners, youre a piece of shit. Same with ANY STD.

You're literally more likely to get HIV from someone who thinks they're clean than from someone who knows and is on appropriate medication. At this point you're safer picking up a pos person than a rando.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

no. with the new law, following a medical regimen to reduce your viral load is treated the same as wearing a condom - it's not criminal at all.

Does the new law state its not a felony only of your viral load is reduced to near zero due to medication? What about people who start the treatment one day and then go out and sleep with someone one day later without telling them or the people who aren't on the treatment at all. Fuck that, I want the library thrown at them.

If I was dating someone and I found out later they had HIV and didn't tell me I'd be furious. Inflict bodily harm furious. You don't get to make that choice for me.

 

[starmud]

I’ve only met one person who was positive and knowingly having sex with as many people as humanly possible. He literally travels area to area and moves with a hippie/spiritual brigade who does art scenes or music at festivals or illegal parties on land they camp out on. He stayed in my local area for some odd months and I was shocked how many people I knew met him or he pursued. He used any of the known sites or apps/gyms.

He slept with a friend of mine and was violent physically when he didn’t want to have unprotected sex. After researching him online he had trails of guys looking for him with similar stories, acting in love and asking for money/favors/being sexually violent/secretly positive. On Facebook he said felt he was doing the 9 to 5 crowd a favor by making their lives change and having to confront their Work/money committed lifestyles. When you think you may die you stop and enjoy simplicity...

Last time I tracked him he was in Baja with another “boyfriend”... a Reminder twisted cases do exist

 

[plagiarize]

Does the new law state its not a felony only of your viral load is reduced to near zero due to medication? What about people who start the treatment one day and then go out and sleep with someone one day later without telling them or the people who aren't on the treatment at all. Fuck that, I want the library thrown at them.

If I was dating someone and I found out later they had HIV and didn't tell me I'd be furious. Inflict bodily harm furious. You don't get to make that choice for me.

The previous law protected you if you insisted on condom use. This one extends that to people who are getting treatment.

If someone isn't on the treatment, doesn't use a condom and doesn't tell you, they will be guilty of a misdemeanor and you will still have been the victim of a crime.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

The previous law protected you if you insisted on condom use. This one extends that to people who are getting treatment.

If someone isn't on the treatment, doesn't use a condom and doesn't tell you, they will be guilty of a misdemeanor and you will still have been the victim of a crime.

How many years of jail time is mandated with that misdemeanor? Misdemeanor just sounds like you are getting off with a fine and community service.

 

[plagiarize]

How many years of jail time is mandated with that misdemeanor? Misdemeanor just sounds like you are getting off with a fine and community service.

You could spend time in prison, but it'll be less than a year.

If you intentionally try to infect someone, that's a different story.

 

[titiklabingapat]

How many years of jail time is mandated with that misdemeanor? Misdemeanor just sounds like you are getting off with a fine and community service.

It's the same with all the other communicable diseases. I think this is where the misunderstanding with Plagiarize is coming from: They aren't for 'spreading HIV with no recourse'. They, along with me, simply want the new laws to reflect the new scientific consensus (risk of transmission, management, mortality, quality of life) especially for those that are actually taking the time to take care of themselves and making it so that others will seek treatment without the stigma. The spirit and intention of the new law is more inline with the experience of HIV medical professionals and advocates today.

It's still illegal to intentionally spread these diseases but you aren't punishing those that are doing thier due diligence anymore.

 

[Majora]

You're literally more likely to get HIV from someone who thinks they're clean than from someone who knows and is on appropriate medication. At this point you're safer picking up a pos person than a rando.

Exactly this. The people demanding that undetectable poz guys have to disclose don't seem to understand that someone who had a test that came back negative 3 months ago and has since has sex are more of a HIV risk than the positive guy undetectable on meds. Who knows what has happened to the 'negative' guys in the weeks and months since they last had a test. Meanwhile you can be safe knowing that the poz guy on meds poses no statistically significant chance of transmitting the virus to you.

People's opinions are based on fear and outdated knowledge, not current medical fact.

 

[metalslimer]

It's the same with all the other communicable diseases. I think this is where the misunderstanding with Plagiarize is coming from: They aren't for 'spreading HIV with no recourse'. They, along with me, simply want the new laws to reflect the new scientific consensus (risk of transmission, management, mortality, quality of life) especially for those that are actually taking the time to take care of themselves and making it so that others will seek treatment without the stigma. The spirit and intention of the new law is more inline with the experience of HIV medical professionals and advocates today.

This is important to state. Nearly every HIV specialist I have talked to has pressed the need for the removal the way we stigmatize HIV within the legal system in order to improve public health outcomes.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

You're literally more likely to get HIV from someone who thinks they're clean than from someone who knows and is on appropriate medication. At this point you're safer picking up a pos person than a rando.

Fucks given: 0. If you are positive, and you dont tell people you intend on sleeping with, youre a piece of shit, full stop no excuses. Quite frankly, if you didnt tell someone and their reaction was violent, I would show you no sympathy.