Charlie Sheen is HIV positive

[Eddie Teach]

No Winning! or tiger blood jokes yet? I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or impressed. 

[garbon]

No, diligence requires disclosure, which is what you and garbon don't understand at all.

You are right, I don't understand that as it isn't true. Strap on a condom and have a low cell count/viral load and you are unlikely to infect anyone. Similarly, you aren't very likely to infect someone if you have oral sex, unless their mouth is full of open sores.

I never said that all undisclosed attempts are "deliberate attempts to infect", so that's a strawman. Garbon's position is that actual infection criminalizations are okay, but non-disclosure where infection does not occur isn't a problem. So under his criteria he's saying that he's okay with a guy who deliberately infects another person facing legal sanction but one who just attempts to, shouldn't. If that's not accurate, then I'll leave it to him to amend his statement, but that is one clear logical extrapolation of his position.

So you take out a strawman against you and then build one for me? To clarify, if a person is deliberately trying to infect people and fails, I think they should still be punished (not by an HIV specific law) but just by laws that prevent you from trying to harm others. However, many yahoos in this thread seem to suggest that the moment you (as an HIV+ person) have sex with someone but don't tell them your status, you are deliberately trying to infect them.

The law can often sort through such matters, and if it can't--then the defendant is acquitted or not charged. That's a similar state to rape cases in which it's difficult to prove someone didn't consent to the sex in many cases.

Actually the UN report I referenced notes this is an issue and is part of the generally arbitrary nature of when this cases are prosecuted.

[garbon]

Sorry gay people. If you have HIV you can't just walk around having sex because your cell count is low. You are claiming that Russian roulette is safe because there is only one bullet in the gun. The fact is, if its low risk, thats a choice for the non HIV infected to make, not the HIV infected.

They made the choice when they decided to sleep with someone without knowing their status. After all, it'd probably be a bit more difficult to note disclose if you were in a long term relationship with someone. They'd find your pills.

As an aside, but since you mentioned it, it is interesting to hear the male heterosexual viewpoint. As a homosexual and the incidence of HIV in my group, I just assume everyone has HIV unless told otherwise.  Of course, all of the gays I've met who I knew for certain had HIV, told me. But then that's another issue with these laws, those who will disclose already do and the UN report noted that there isn't any evidence suggesting that those who don't want to disclose do because of the existence of these laws. Instead you can see these laws used by jilted lovers who after the fact claim they never knew about their partner's status. Then the onus falls on the defendant to prove that their lover new.

[garbon]

No Winning! or tiger blood jokes yet? I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or impressed. 

I couldn't give a rats ass about Sheen.

[Eddie Teach]

No Winning! or tiger blood jokes yet? I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or impressed. 

I couldn't give a rats ass about Sheen.

This place wouldn't be fertile ground for such light mockery if you did.

[Tamas]

Sorry gay people. If you have HIV you can't just walk around having sex because your cell count is low. You are claiming that Russian roulette is safe because there is only one bullet in the gun. The fact is, if its low risk, thats a choice for the non HIV infected to make, not the HIV infected.

They made the choice when they decided to sleep with someone without knowing their status. After all, it'd probably be a bit more difficult to note disclose if you were in a long term relationship with someone. They'd find your pills.

Apart from showing the ransacking of one's partner's belongings in search of hidden information as a normal and prudent behaviour, your argument equals the ones which would blame victims of data theft for not protecting their files well enough, and with sufficient hyperbole can be equated to blaming rape victims for not wearing non-arousing clothing.

Sure you can almost guarantee your protection from HIV by not putting your dick into anything that's warm, but that hardly excuses the partner from not telling the lethal danger they are inviting you to indulge in.

[garbon]

Sorry gay people. If you have HIV you can't just walk around having sex because your cell count is low. You are claiming that Russian roulette is safe because there is only one bullet in the gun. The fact is, if its low risk, thats a choice for the non HIV infected to make, not the HIV infected.

They made the choice when they decided to sleep with someone without knowing their status. After all, it'd probably be a bit more difficult to note disclose if you were in a long term relationship with someone. They'd find your pills.

Apart from showing the ransacking of one's partner's belongings in search of hidden information as a normal and prudent behaviour, your argument equals the ones which would blame victims of data theft for not protecting their files well enough, and with sufficient hyperbole can be equated to blaming rape victims for not wearing non-arousing clothing.

Sure you can almost guarantee your protection from HIV by not putting your dick into anything that's warm, but that hardly excuses the partner from not telling the lethal danger they are inviting you to indulge in.

No, it isn't that at all. Again you are saying that if someone with HIV has sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, they suddenly are doing something wrong. I don't see why that is the case if they have taken adequate precautions. It shouldn't be a crime not to disclose your medical history. What happened to right to privacy? That evaporates when you contract HIV?

I think it is morally wrong not to disclose one's status, but I don't see why that should be illegal. What should be illegal (and already would be barring HIV specific laws) is sleeping with partners with the intent of causing them harm. Maybe something like reckless endangerment if they have HIV, didn't disclose and had unprotected sex with a partner (and perhaps also no low viral load). That person took no precautions knowing that spreading the infection could be a likely outcome. Still doesn't seem like that needs a specific law targeting HIV transmission.

Also, I think there is a difference between not disclosing and lying if asked. I doubt many partners are asking which basic prudence would suggest.

[Tamas]

No, it isn't that at all. Again you are saying that if someone with HIV has sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, they suddenly are doing something wrong. I don't see why that is the case if they have taken adequate precautions. It shouldn't be a crime not to disclose your medical history. What happened to right to privacy? That evaporates when you contract HIV?

No that is not what I am saying. If the non-infected person is aware of the other's infection and still consents then it is up to them, good for them.

And yes your right to privacy does evaporate when you are exposing somebody to mortal danger without their knowledge or consent. Having sex is not a basic right trumping the basic rights of any other individual you decide to have sex with.

To me it seems quite simple: having sex with a HIV positive person IS a risk. Maybe much less a risk than 20 years ago, but still is. It CAN have massive consequences to your life. It might be a risk worth taking for somebody, but it is not the infected's prerogative to make this risk-taking decision on behalf of the uninfected uninformed person.

In all other aspects of life and law, we forbid such decisions to be made on behalf of the uninformed party. To give a mild example, we require tobacco companies to disclose the fact that their cigarettes cause cancer. We are not forbidding people from smoking, but we forbid the party exposing the other party to a health risk, from keeping that risk a secret.

And you may dislike the comparison, but in practical terms they are the same category.

[garbon]

No that is not what I am saying. If the non-infected person is aware of the other's infection and still consents then it is up to them, good for them.

And yes your right to privacy does evaporate when you are exposing somebody to mortal danger without their knowledge or consent. Having sex is not a basic right trumping the basic rights of any other individual you decide to have sex with.

To me it seems quite simple: having sex with a HIV positive person IS a risk. Maybe much less a risk than 20 years ago, but still is. It CAN have massive consequences to your life. It might be a risk worth taking for somebody, but it is not the infected's prerogative to make this risk-taking decision on behalf of the uninfected uninformed person.

Many things about sex are a risk and can have massive consequences to your life. Many sexually transmitted diseases can have a significant impact. Hell, pregnancy risk can be a total life changer. Should we imprison women who get pregnant when they told their partner they were on the pill and/or failed to disclose that they weren't on birth control? Imprison the man who says he is using a condom, but doesn't? Maybe the guy that says he has had a vasectomy but didn't? On the STD front, should we imprison people who don't disclose they have HPV, Hep C or similar?

The only way I could see HIV disclosure being necessary to avoid committing a crime is if we lived in a society where 'rape by deception' was a crime. Otherwise it is one of the myriad of things you might not know about a potential partner - among one of the many risks that comes with engaging in sexual behavior.

In all other aspects of life and law, we forbid such decisions to be made on behalf of the uninformed party. To give a mild example, we require tobacco companies to disclose the fact that their cigarettes cause cancer. We are not forbidding people from smoking, but we forbid the party exposing the other party to a health risk, from keeping that risk a secret.

And you may dislike the comparison, but in practical terms they are the same category.

I don't dislike the comparison so much as I think it is ridiculous. Everyone knows that there are health risks associated with unprotected sex, and while that's really true for smoking, we don't make all people who are going to engage in unprotected sex explain to their partners all the risks they might be taking.

While certainly I guess that would make for a lovely world, where we all entered into sex aware of all the potential dangers to our health - I don't think the government should be mandated that. Particularly given that evidence does not suggest these laws do good and instead just get used for harmful purposes.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?

flu is a deadly virus...

[Tamas]

What do you mean by harmful purposes? That eg. ex-partners lie about being informed about the STD beforehand to get one in trouble?

I can certainly see that, but then one argument people who want to dismiss concerns about domestic abuse and rape in particular is to claim legislation against such things can be used for vile purposes between spouses.

[garbon]

What do you mean by harmful purposes? That eg. ex-partners lie about being informed about the STD beforehand to get one in trouble?

I can certainly see that, but then one argument people who want to dismiss concerns about domestic abuse and rape in particular is to claim legislation against such things can be used for vile purposes between spouses.

Look at pages 22-29 of the UN report I linked which lists all the drawbacks they can see of said laws. 25-29 specifically notes legal issues.

As for the two areas you've noted, yes but those actually have been shown to have positive impacts. The positive impact of HIV laws is, if one is being generous, unclear.

[Martinus]

What do you mean by harmful purposes? That eg. ex-partners lie about being informed about the STD beforehand to get one in trouble?

I can certainly see that, but then one argument people who want to dismiss concerns about domestic abuse and rape in particular is to claim legislation against such things can be used for vile purposes between spouses.

When it comes to domestic abuse and rape there is often corroborating evidence that can be used - when it comes to disclosure of an STD it is just word vs. word.

Plus the social harm of rape/domestic abuse is much greater so there is also the issue of proportionality.

I guess at the end of the day, one should probably start asking a prospective sexual partner to sign several pages of legal statements.

[Tamas]

BTW is it just a coincidence that the two of you are on agreement over this, or are you showing the general consensus in the gay community?
Meaning iff somebody gets infected because the HIV positive guy chose to risk the other's life just so he can get some action, then it's basically judged the "victim's" fault for not using proper caution/getting unlucky?

[alfred russel]

No, it isn't that at all. Again you are saying that if someone with HIV has sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, they suddenly are doing something wrong. I don't see why that is the case if they have taken adequate precautions. It shouldn't be a crime not to disclose your medical history. What happened to right to privacy? That evaporates when you contract HIV?

Blood tests before marriage have long been required by at least some states. There are limits to the right of privacy.