Languish Gheys and/or Lawtalkers to Me

[garbon]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.

[Admiral Yi]

But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people?  Go figure.

Fastest growing population does not equal most new cases.  You go from 2 to 10 cases in one year that's a very fast growing population.

[Martinus]

In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive.  I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.

The problem with such law is that, except for a situation when you have truly intentional HIV infection (i.e. someone deliberately trying to get the other person infected), there is no such thing as "safe" sex - there are just various degrees of protection and risk involved. This makes for very bad grounds for criminal liability unless you are saying that a HIV positive person should not be having sex at all - for example using a condom is not a 100% protection against infection, while on the other hand some forms of "unprotected" sex are mostly safe (e.g. oral sex). In such cases, when would someone be facing criminal liability? When the infection actually happened? (So you would go to prison based on a luck or lack thereof) Or something else?

If anything, we should base criminal liability on the up-front disclosure - and let the other sex partner decide if he wants to take the risk or not.

[Martinus]

But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people?  Go figure.

Fastest growing population does not equal most new cases.  You go from 2 to 10 cases in one year that's a very fast growing population.

Yeah.

[Viking]

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

Yes, it seems that an HIV positive person cannot have unprotected sec with an HIV negative person regardless of his or her knowledge of HIV status without it being a crime.

Safe sex and unprotected sex between two HIV positive partners doesn't seem to be a crime.


Edit; and by sex I think the law means anal and vaginal penetration.

[Martinus]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.

No method offers 100% protection, so in a sense all sex is unprotected.

[The Brain]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.

No method offers 100% protection, so in a sense all sex is unprotected.

Interesting theory.

[garbon]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

Well unprotected sex isn't the only kind of sex but I agree with your sentiment.

No method offers 100% protection, so in a sense all sex is unprotected.

Do you think that's what their law means?

[Martinus]

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

Yes, it seems that an HIV positive person cannot have unprotected sec with an HIV negative person regardless of his or her knowledge of HIV status without it being a crime.

Safe sex and unprotected sex between two HIV positive partners doesn't seem to be a crime.

"Safe sex" is a misnomer. So are you going to set some arbitrary "infection risk percentage" below which you are not liable? What is it? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

[Barrister]

In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive.  I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.

The problem with such law is that, except for a situation when you have truly intentional HIV infection (i.e. someone deliberately trying to get the other person infected), there is no such thing as "safe" sex - there are just various degrees of protection and risk involved. This makes for very bad grounds for criminal liability unless you are saying that a HIV positive person should not be having sex at all - for example using a condom is not a 100% protection against infection, while on the other hand some forms of "unprotected" sex are mostly safe (e.g. oral sex). In such cases, when would someone be facing criminal liability? When the infection actually happened? (So you would go to prison based on a luck or lack thereof) Or something else?

If anything, we should base criminal liability on the up-front disclosure - and let the other sex partner decide if he wants to take the risk or not.

"safe sex" means a condom.  Fair point that condoms are not 100% effective, but that seems to me to be a fairly bright line for determining criminal behaviour.

Of course people should be up front and disclose their status.  It is one option to say "you must disclose your status before engaging in any kind of sexual behaviour, protected or not", but that seems a bit harsher than perhaps it needs to be.

[Martinus]

Edit; and by sex I think the law means anal and vaginal penetration.

I thought the law refered to "infecting someone". Does it single out sexual activity in order to be liable? So if a HIV positive person put his or her infected blood in a syringe and randomly stabbed people with it, he or she would not be liable under this law? This is getting crazier with each moment. 

[The Brain]

Mart, Mart, Mart...

[garbon]

In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive.  I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.

Is it also a crime if one had sexual relations with someone without disclosing they had Ebola?

Anyway, your last bit is odd considering a big part of the HIV epidemic is that people aren't getting tested and then continuing to have unprotected sex.

Oh and though I picked a far out example here - I'm still trying to get at what Marti had asked. Is HIV that different that it should have special rules? (Or maybe in Canada it doesn't?)

[Martinus]

In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive.  I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.

The problem with such law is that, except for a situation when you have truly intentional HIV infection (i.e. someone deliberately trying to get the other person infected), there is no such thing as "safe" sex - there are just various degrees of protection and risk involved. This makes for very bad grounds for criminal liability unless you are saying that a HIV positive person should not be having sex at all - for example using a condom is not a 100% protection against infection, while on the other hand some forms of "unprotected" sex are mostly safe (e.g. oral sex). In such cases, when would someone be facing criminal liability? When the infection actually happened? (So you would go to prison based on a luck or lack thereof) Or something else?

If anything, we should base criminal liability on the up-front disclosure - and let the other sex partner decide if he wants to take the risk or not.

"safe sex" means a condom.  Fair point that condoms are not 100% effective, but that seems to me to be a fairly bright line for determining criminal behaviour.

Of course people should be up front and disclose their status.  It is one option to say "you must disclose your status before engaging in any kind of sexual behaviour, protected or not", but that seems a bit harsher than perhaps it needs to be.

Just to clarify, are we talking only about anal and vaginal sex or e.g. also oral sex? You have a higher chance of getting HIV as a passive partner in anal sex when the active partner is wearing a condom than you have when engaging in oral sex without a condom, btw.

It seems to me that these laws are determined by people who, like most of the posters in this thread, are woefully ignorant about how HIV (or other communicable diseases) can be transmitted.

[The Brain]

You have a higher chance of getting HIV as a passive partner in anal sex while wearing a condom than you have when engaging in oral sex without a condom, btw.

I think I know why.