If he didn't disclose his status to partners, won't he be up for aggravated assault charges?
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/11/charlie-sheen-hiv-positive
Quote
Charlie Sheen Will Reportedly Disclose H.I.V.-Positive Status
The actor is expected to make the announcement on NBC's Today on Tuesday.
by Julie Miller,
Charlie Sheen, the volatile former star of Two and a Half Men, is reportedly H.I.V. positive, according to TMZ.
The outlet breaks the news after NBC's Today announced that the four-time Emmy nominee would make an appearance on Tuesday's show, in an interview with Matt Lauer.
The report follows a series of blind gossip items about "an A-list actor [who] was diagnosed with HIV." Although commenters suggested that Sheen fits the profile described by Radar, the actor has not commented on the speculation.
TMZ alleges that Sheen knew about "his status for more than a year" and tried to keep the medical news a secret but friends he had trusted with the diagnosis started leaking the information. The outlet continues:
That led to several of Charlie's former partners contacting him and threatening a lawsuit because they were unaware of his status when they had interaction with him. Our sources say Charlie settled several of the cases and, in return for money, got confidentiality agreements.
Publicist and crisis manager Howard Bragman has since told People that he was approached by people close to Sheen earlier this year about how to handle the situation. "The interview could open up a lot of sympathy for him, but he has to be concerned about a fear of litigation from former sexual partners," Bragman told the magazine.
Bragman, who has never dealt with Sheen directly, added that the actor "is getting treatment, and a lot of people in his life know about it." He continued, "It's been going on for quite awhile. He's not necessarily comfortable talking about it. It was very hard to get up the courage for him to talk about it."
On Monday, Today confirmed Sheen was scheduled on the show, and teased that the actor "will make a revealing personal announcement on Tuesday, November 17, in a sit-down interview with Matt Lauer."
In 2011, Vanity Fair's Mark Seal wrote about the actor's very public implosion, which coincided with his exit from Two and a Half Men after eight seasons starring on the CBS sitcom, and his turbulent life growing up the son of movie star Martin Sheen. To read Seal's investigation of Sheen's dark spiral into drugs, hookers, and rehab, click here.
VF Hollywood has reached out to Sheen's publicist for comment.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2015, 06:46:32 PM
If he didn't disclose his status to partners, won't he be up for aggravated assault charges?
Depends on jurisdiction. Horrible laws those, btw.
Also, why are you reporting he is if the story is that he will reportedly be announcing this?
I'd be more surprising if he didn't have HIV, really.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 07:00:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 06:53:35 PM
Horrible laws those, btw.
Totally disagree.
Let's see. 1) They discourage people to get tested, 2) They often get used in horribly vindictive ways (by both jilted lovers and law enforcement), 3) They seem to be rooted in olden days when HIV transmission was actually difficult to prevent during sex/effective treatments were basically unavailable, 4) We don't require any other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which can have serious health implications, be disclosed to partners, 5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection and maybe less important but 6) They help to continue stigmatization of HIV+ people as well as support myths regarding HIV transmission.
Or as the Obama administration put it:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/NHAS.pdf
"A recent research study also found that HIV-specific laws do not influence the behavior of people living with HIV in those states where these laws exist. While we understand the intent behind such laws, they may not have the desired effect and they may make people less willing to disclose their status by making people feel at even greater risk of discrimination. In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment."
If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 07:08:22 PM
If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?
Did you read the whole of Garbon's post?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 07:10:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 07:08:22 PM
If you're knowingly exposing people to a deadly disease without informing them, then how exactly is this not a very fucking serious crime?
Did you read the whole of Garbon's post?
He posted seconds later so I don't think he saw it.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection
Wouldn't that be the use of a standard aggravated assault charge referred to...or am I missing something(some other law)? :unsure:
What adequate laws are you referring to Grab On?
It sounds like garbon's explanatory post is just a utilitarian justification for not criminalizing something that is gravely immoral, violates the bounds of decency, causes grave harm to other persons--and in short, satisfies all the normal criteria for criminalizing activity. It seems somewhat similar to saying that you shouldn't require school counselors to report if a student discusses sexual abuse in the home with the counselor because it might discourage the students from getting needed counseling for the abuse.
The fact that we do not have similar laws for other serious STDs just suggests a lapse in the laws, not a reason to get rid of the ones for HIV.
Also I patently reject anyone has ever said "man, I better not get tested for a very treatable disease that will kill me if I never get it diagnosed and treated because doing so creates a paper trail that could result in me going to jail for not disclosing to future sexual partners if I have the disease." Just doesn't happen. These laws may not help combat the spread of HIV but it's dumb to claim any serious number of people in 2015 are not getting tested for HIV because of a fear that they won't be able to have sex without disclosing it in the future. That logic made sense when HIV was a death sentence and knowing largely didn't matter a whole lot, but that's not been the case for 20 years now.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 07:20:28 PM
it's dumb to claim any serious number of people in 2015 are not getting tested for HIV because of a fear that they won't be able to have sex without disclosing it in the future.
:lol:
Okay.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection
Wouldn't that be the use of a standard aggravated assault charge referred to...or am I missing something(some other law)? :unsure:
Tim said disclosure should carry the assault charge. If you are taking proper medication and using safe sex practices (not that Mr. Sheen is necessarily doing that) transmission chances are lowered very significantly. I don't see why you should be up for aggravated assault barring that - though I would agree that you probably should have just had the uncomfortable conversation with a prospective partner ahead of time.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
Let's see. 1) They discourage people to get tested,
I doubt many people think: "I might have HIV, which is manageable if detected but often fatal otherwise. However, I'm going to forgo testing, because I really like to raw dog, and if I get tested and am positive, I will be in trouble with the law if I raw dog unsuspecting partners." :huh:
Quote2) They often get used in horribly vindictive ways (by both jilted lovers and law enforcement),
Wouldn't you be horribly vindictive if someone knew he had HIV, didn't tell you, and infected you? Is that a bug or the laws WAD?
Quote3) They seem to be rooted in olden days when HIV transmission was actually difficult to prevent during sex/effective treatments were basically unavailable,
So it is cool to expose people to HIV without their knowledge because there are treatments now?
Quote4) We don't require any other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which can have serious health implications, be disclosed to partners,
Maybe we should.
Quote5) There are already adequate laws for someone who knowingly and intentionally transmits an HIV infection and maybe less important but
That seems to contradict #4. Assuming laws that don't single out HIV are already on the books, doesn't that mean it is required for other STDs as well?
Quote6) They help to continue stigmatization of HIV+ people as well as support myths regarding HIV transmission.
It is a myth that unprotected sex with an infected person can lead to HIV transmission?
Btw, for anyone interested in the topic - this is a few years old now, but I still think worth a glance.
http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/document/2012/BackgroundCurrentLandscapeCriminalisationHIV_Final.pdf
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2015, 07:32:43 PM
I doubt many people think: "I might have HIV, which is manageable if detected but often fatal otherwise. However, I'm going to forgo testing, because I really like to raw dog, and if I get tested and am positive, I will be in trouble with the law if I raw dog unsuspecting partners." :huh:
I think there is a significant deterrent to getting tested for a number of medical conditions for fear of a whole range of negative consequences. People not going for help with mental illnesses for fear of the negative consequences is a similar problem. The main issue for me is the adequacy of existing laws to deal with people who cause intentional or negligent harm on others. I am not sure why there was a need to single out this particular act out of all the other ways people do harm to others which are already covered by legal sanction and liability. Especially when it doesn't appear to have, on balance, a salutary effect.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 07:37:43 PM
I think there is a significant deterrent to getting tested for a number of medical conditions for fear of a whole range of negative consequences. People not going for help with mental illnesses for fear of the negative consequences is a similar problem. The main issue for me is the adequacy of existing laws to deal with people who cause intentional or negligent harm on others. I am not sure why there was a need to single out this particular act out of all the other ways people do harm to others which are already covered by legal sanction and liability. Especially when it doesn't appear to have, on balance, a salutary effect.
So long as there are other laws on the books that ensure someone knowingly exposing his or her partner to HIV without the partner's knowledge will go to jail for a very long time, then I agree the laws are unnecessary as they are redundant.
Yep, agreed--if exposing someone to HIV is criminalized otherwise, then fine. My understanding is that it isn't. Exposing someone to an STD would be a major uphill battle on traditional charges like assault or reckless endangerment. Garbon has already conceded actually infecting someone with HIV deliberately and without their knowledge should be criminalized, so it's weird he's against criminalizing attempting to do that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 16, 2015, 07:37:43 PMI think there is a significant deterrent to getting tested for a number of medical conditions for fear of a whole range of negative consequences. People not going for help with mental illnesses for fear of the negative consequences is a similar problem. The main issue for me is the adequacy of existing laws to deal with people who cause intentional or negligent harm on others. I am not sure why there was a need to single out this particular act out of all the other ways people do harm to others which are already covered by legal sanction and liability. Especially when it doesn't appear to have, on balance, a salutary effect.
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
One girl I boinked told me she had herpes after I had boinked her. A thousand times.
You were destined to get herpes anyway.
I didn't get herpes from her. She was taking that drug that suppresses the sores.
Still gross
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:09:50 PM
Yep, agreed--if exposing someone to HIV is criminalized otherwise, then fine. My understanding is that it isn't. Exposing someone to an STD would be a major uphill battle on traditional charges like assault or reckless endangerment. Garbon has already conceded actually infecting someone with HIV deliberately and without their knowledge should be criminalized, so it's weird he's against criminalizing attempting to do that.
Your last sentence shows you do not understand the issue - simply put, obviously, not every case of not disclosing your HIV status to a partner could count as "attempting to infect someone deliberately" (first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection; thirdly you could be using a sexual technique that carries little to no risk of infection). The laws on disclosure conflate simply not telling your partner about your HIV status with an intention to infect them - whilst there may even not be recklessness or carelessness involved on your part and you may have been acting diligently.
There is also a practical issue of you having no evidence you actually disclosed your HIV status to your partner, if you encounter a vindictive bitch that wants to put you in jail.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 10:43:49 PM
I didn't get herpes from her. She was taking that drug that suppresses the sores.
Now you're the one lying.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:13:14 AMThis is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
Any unprotected sexual intercourse has a potential of transmission. Different factors can make it higher or less likely to transmit in a given act of intercourse, but that's true of basically all disease transmissions, none of them are 100%.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:07:22 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:09:50 PM
Yep, agreed--if exposing someone to HIV is criminalized otherwise, then fine. My understanding is that it isn't. Exposing someone to an STD would be a major uphill battle on traditional charges like assault or reckless endangerment. Garbon has already conceded actually infecting someone with HIV deliberately and without their knowledge should be criminalized, so it's weird he's against criminalizing attempting to do that.
Your last sentence shows you do not understand the issue - simply put, obviously, not every case of not disclosing your HIV status to a partner could count as "attempting to infect someone deliberately" (first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection; thirdly you could be using a sexual technique that carries little to no risk of infection). The laws on disclosure conflate simply not telling your partner about your HIV status with an intention to infect them - whilst there may even not be recklessness or carelessness involved on your part and you may have been acting diligently.
No, diligence requires disclosure, which is what you and garbon don't understand at all. 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.
QuoteThere is also a practical issue of you having no evidence you actually disclosed your HIV status to your partner, if you encounter a vindictive bitch that wants to put you in jail.
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.
No Winning! or tiger blood jokes yet? I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or impressed. :hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 02:25:18 AM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 02:25:18 AMI 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Jaron on November 17, 2015, 01:17:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 17, 2015, 03:08:31 AM
No Winning! or tiger blood jokes yet? I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or impressed. :hmm:
I couldn't give a rats ass about Sheen.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:01:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 17, 2015, 03:08:31 AM
No Winning! or tiger blood jokes yet? I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or impressed. :hmm:
I couldn't give a rats ass about Sheen.
This place wouldn't be fertile ground for such light mockery if you did.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 03:35:23 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 17, 2015, 01:17:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 04:25:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 03:35:23 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 17, 2015, 01:17:56 AM
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.
QuoteNo, 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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 05:23:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 05:23:42 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 07:08:22 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 08:07:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 08:07:42 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:14:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
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?
Yes, garbon mentioned that in this thread before. Essentially, the approach to HIV (and other sexually transmitted diseases) among the gay community is that you should assume that every partner may have it and should act accordingly - relying on a hypothetical that your partner (i) has been tested, (ii) is aware that they have the STD (many diseases do not show in early tests for example) and (iii) will tell you that is simply too risky.
It's the equivalent of driving a car with no anti-collision protections and no safety belts, because you are assuming all the other drivers drive safely.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2015, 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:14:23 AM
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.
That would be considered a massive violation of privacy in Europe. It's unthinkable.
Quote from: Tamas on November 17, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
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?
I don't think it is the victim's fault but as I said, I just generally assume all partners have HIV unless I have some confirmation otherwise / I guess theoretically if I had been with someone for years. That said, I think safe sex practices are pretty much a standard in the gay community. In fact, I know there was some revulsion when PrEP came out as it was thought that it would encourage people to engage in more reckless behavior while not actually staying compliant with the treatment. If the NHS agrees to fund PrEP next year, I think I'll go on it but will still continue to maintain safe sex practices.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:13:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:13:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.
I already did in this thread. So did garbon.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 08:36:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:13:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.
I already did in this thread. So did garbon.
And it isn't just how we think, it is how the UN, WHO, CDC and all the various health acronyms think.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2015, 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:14:23 AM
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.
Is that true? I've never heard of this.
Yeah I would be curious which states these are so I can avoid them in the future.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 08:40:18 AM
Yeah I would be curious which states these are so I can avoid them in the future.
Incidentally, I wonder if these laws were passed by lawmakers who are for or against the "nanny state"...
Because I can't imagine a more nanny-ish state law than this.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chart-state-marriage-license-blood-29019.html
This suggests DC, Mississippi, Montana (for women) and New York (for black and hispanics for sickle-cell). :hmm:
Though NYS gov website no test is required and MS gov says they changed policy in 2012.
Actually Montana seems to still require blood testing for rubella immunity on part of female applicant though you can instead sign a waiver to bypass testing. Oh and DC gov says they don't need it.
So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again. There is potentially one state that requires blood testing but a requirement you can sign a waiver to get past doesn't really sound like a legit requirement.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 08:37:40 AM
Is that true? I've never heard of this.
I'm sure I've heard of that in a book or movie somewhere.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again.
That's not fair, his info is dated but was once true.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
Actually Montana seems to still require blood testing for rubella immunity on part of female applicant though you can instead sign a waiver to bypass testing. Oh and DC gov says they don't need it.
So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again. There is potentially one state that requires blood testing but a requirement you can sign a waiver to get past doesn't really sound like a legit requirement.
Hah. Judging from his post, it would seem like at least a sizeable minority of states require that and it is a growing trend. :lol:
Dorsey never changes.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 03:29:29 AMYou 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 don't generally define oral sex as "sexual intercourse", ala Bill Clinton. But you shouldn't be deciding this risk for other people--disclosure gives them the choice to decide it for themselves.
QuoteSo 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.
I viewed it as a subset of cases which could occur under the aegis of "non-disclosure" sexual intercourse incidents. If you're saying that for this subset you support legal action, then okay. But like I said, I believe these laws were created precisely because traditional reckless endangerment statutes were not sufficiently robust to be applicable to relatively new concepts like exposing someone to an STD.
QuoteActually the UN report I referenced notes this is an issue and is part of the generally arbitrary nature of when this cases are prosecuted.
I don't care at all about the UN, literally nothing they say or do has meaningful value to me. The U.S. justice system features the concept of prosecutorial discretion, so there is always an inherent reality that you can call it arbitrary when a case is brought to trial or not. I don't think we should stop writing new laws just because prosecutorial discretion exists.
It's really bizarre to me how strong European "privacy rights" are, when they have weaker property and free speech rights than the United States. I personally just don't value privacy rights very highly, I think there should be a default state of privacy from government. But anything you disclose to others (such as corporations) I don't really feel there should be legal privacy other than in the form of contract law if the corporation agrees to protect it and then fails to do so you would have cause of action. I also have no problem with government infringing on the privacy right regularly for purposes of public policy.
As long as you're secure in your possessions, protected from investigatory actions by the warrant requirement, and have the rights to free expression I don't really see a lot of value in overly-rigorous privacy rights. Maybe my view is mainstream in America and that is why privacy isn't nearly the issue here that it is in Europe.
I will also say that maybe the younger group here are jumping on russel a little too quickly, when I got married we had to do the blood test (it's no longer required in this State), and to be honest I know that it was a pretty standard thing in most states at that time. A lot of them were repealed very rapidly in the 90s as they were seen as an "old school" outdated practice from the turn of the century.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 10:00:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
Actually Montana seems to still require blood testing for rubella immunity on part of female applicant though you can instead sign a waiver to bypass testing. Oh and DC gov says they don't need it.
So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again. There is potentially one state that requires blood testing but a requirement you can sign a waiver to get past doesn't really sound like a legit requirement.
Hah. Judging from his post, it would seem like at least a sizeable minority of states require that and it is a growing trend. :lol:
Dorsey never changes.
So I wasn't up to date on lots of states doing away with the requirement. The point remains: it has been required by a number of states in the past, which gets to some point about a right to disclosure/invasion of privacy and what is allowed and permissible.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
Actually Montana seems to still require blood testing for rubella immunity on part of female applicant though you can instead sign a waiver to bypass testing. Oh and DC gov says they don't need it.
So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again. There is potentially one state that requires blood testing but a requirement you can sign a waiver to get past doesn't really sound like a legit requirement.
Crap, man, I thought you were going to make it two years without responding to me. Such a silly topic on which to throw away such a long streak. :mad:
He was not responding to you, he was responding to me -_-
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
He was not responding to you, he was responding to me -_-
:)
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
He was not responding to you, he was responding to me -_-
You did toss a question out there, but you don't think he was trying to refute what I said in his post? After all, I don't think he meant you when he mentioned the "truth teller".
Perhaps he's taken lessons from the way grumbler "ignores" Raz.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 10:34:19 AM
It's really bizarre to me how strong European "privacy rights" are, when they have weaker property and free speech rights than the United States. I personally just don't value privacy rights very highly, I think there should be a default state of privacy from government. But anything you disclose to others (such as corporations) I don't really feel there should be legal privacy other than in the form of contract law if the corporation agrees to protect it and then fails to do so you would have cause of action. I also have no problem with government infringing on the privacy right regularly for purposes of public policy.
As long as you're secure in your possessions, protected from investigatory actions by the warrant requirement, and have the rights to free expression I don't really see a lot of value in overly-rigorous privacy rights. Maybe my view is mainstream in America and that is why privacy isn't nearly the issue here that it is in Europe.
I will also say that maybe the younger group here are jumping on russel a little too quickly, when I got married we had to do the blood test (it's no longer required in this State), and to be honest I know that it was a pretty standard thing in most states at that time. A lot of them were repealed very rapidly in the 90s as they were seen as an "old school" outdated practice from the turn of the century.
I think your view of the importance of privacy laws (or rather the lack thereof) is outdated and doesn't reflect the amount of information now routinely and easily gathered about individuals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 12:06:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 10:34:19 AM
It's really bizarre to me how strong European "privacy rights" are, when they have weaker property and free speech rights than the United States. I personally just don't value privacy rights very highly, I think there should be a default state of privacy from government. But anything you disclose to others (such as corporations) I don't really feel there should be legal privacy other than in the form of contract law if the corporation agrees to protect it and then fails to do so you would have cause of action. I also have no problem with government infringing on the privacy right regularly for purposes of public policy.
As long as you're secure in your possessions, protected from investigatory actions by the warrant requirement, and have the rights to free expression I don't really see a lot of value in overly-rigorous privacy rights. Maybe my view is mainstream in America and that is why privacy isn't nearly the issue here that it is in Europe.
I will also say that maybe the younger group here are jumping on russel a little too quickly, when I got married we had to do the blood test (it's no longer required in this State), and to be honest I know that it was a pretty standard thing in most states at that time. A lot of them were repealed very rapidly in the 90s as they were seen as an "old school" outdated practice from the turn of the century.
I think your view of the importance of privacy laws (or rather the lack thereof) is outdated and doesn't reflect the amount of information now routinely and easily gathered about individuals.
Please, I'm not some white hair unfamiliar with the word around me, I'm a technological trailblazer. I just don't actually think nonsense people spew out into the internet is very important from a privacy perspective. I view the Internet as fundamentally not a private place, akin to a public street. If I wear a shirt out in public that says "I have a fetish for goats", then that's not private. If I put that out on the Internet, that's not private. If I want something to be private, I don't say it in public places or share it publicly, and I'd be upset if the government came to it without a warrant. But if the government in some large sweeping surveillance effort accumulates embarrassing data about me that I freely put on the Internet (which they'd likely never look at anyway), that's on me.
When it comes to privacy, technology matters. While there may not appear to be a difference between expressing your sexual preference for goats on the street or on the Internet, the fact that Internet has a far better and much more easily accessible memory than the collective memory of people on the street should factor into privacy protections.
Eh, I don't buy into that, and never will. So take it as you will. Public to me is public.
I might be amenable to an argument that where technology approximates private analog communications those too should be private. Email should be seen as like to personal letters, which the government cannot just open. But posts on Facebook, a message board--and even more importantly online news articles are not venues that should be privacy protected.
I think in part because I was an early use of the internet, back when it wasn't used for much commerce or business but was primarily just for information sharing, games, low res porn jpgs and gifs I never bought into the illusion that younger people have that the internet is a virtual extension of your living room just because you access it from there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 02:06:45 PM
Eh, I don't buy into that, and never will. So take it as you will. Public to me is public.
I might be amenable to an argument that where technology approximates private analog communications those too should be private. Email should be seen as like to personal letters, which the government cannot just open. But posts on Facebook, a message board--and even more importantly online news articles are not venues that should be privacy protected.
I think in part because I was an early use of the internet, back when it wasn't used for much commerce or business but was primarily just for information sharing, games, low res porn jpgs and gifs I never bought into the illusion that younger people have that the internet is a virtual extension of your living room just because you access it from there.
I guess it's a difference in philosophies. Becoming a user of Internet in the age when the amount of data exploded makes me realize that what matters is not what data may exist out there somewhere, but what data is easily accessible. What is not reasonably accessible for all intents and purposes does not exist, except in cases of very focused investigation. And on that account, what can be seen on the street and what can be seen on the Internet aren't in the same ZIP code. They aren't even on the same continent.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 08:36:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:13:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.
I already did in this thread. So did garbon.
I was hoping for something a little more honest. I remember a discussion with Derspeiss where he mentions a type of fire arm isn't "that deadly", which means of course if you get shot with it there you will be badly wounded and may die. In this situation wearing a condom doesn't mean you can't spread and contract HIV, to which you said
Quote(first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection;
This is a falsehood.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 08:33:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2015, 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:14:23 AM
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.
That would be considered a massive violation of privacy in Europe. It's unthinkable.
This is for France:
QuoteUn certificat médical prénuptial datant de moins de deux mois à la remise du dossier. C'est votre médecin qui procédera à cet examen clinique en vous envoyant faire une prise de sang pour déterminer votre groupe sanguin, ainsi que des tests pour déterminer si vous étes immunisée contre la rubéole et la toxoplasmose en cas de grossesse. Votre conjoint devra lui aussi faire une prise de sang pour déterminer son groupe sanguin et son rhésus, afin de connaitre les éventuelles incompatibilités avec vous en cas de grossesse. Enfin, il vous proposera aussi un test de dépistage du sida non obligatoire.
QuoteA prenuptial medical certificate dated within two months of receiving the file . It is your doctor who will conduct this clinical exam by sending you a blood test to determine your blood type, as well as tests to determine if you are immune against rubella and toxoplasmosis in pregnancy . Your spouse will also do a blood test to determine blood type and Rh , in order to know what activities are incompatible with you in case of pregnancy. Finally, it will also offer you a non-mandatory AIDS testing.
I think this still exists for Quebec.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 08:36:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:13:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 16, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.
This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.
Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.
I already did in this thread. So did garbon.
I was hoping for something a little more honest. I remember a discussion with Derspeiss where he mentions a type of fire arm isn't "that deadly", which means of course if you get shot with it there you will be badly wounded and may die. In this situation wearing a condom doesn't mean you can't spread and contract HIV, to which you said
Quote(first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection;
This is a falsehood.
It is true, he made an overreach. Oh well.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 01:58:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 12:06:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2015, 10:34:19 AM
It's really bizarre to me how strong European "privacy rights" are, when they have weaker property and free speech rights than the United States. I personally just don't value privacy rights very highly, I think there should be a default state of privacy from government. But anything you disclose to others (such as corporations) I don't really feel there should be legal privacy other than in the form of contract law if the corporation agrees to protect it and then fails to do so you would have cause of action. I also have no problem with government infringing on the privacy right regularly for purposes of public policy.
As long as you're secure in your possessions, protected from investigatory actions by the warrant requirement, and have the rights to free expression I don't really see a lot of value in overly-rigorous privacy rights. Maybe my view is mainstream in America and that is why privacy isn't nearly the issue here that it is in Europe.
I will also say that maybe the younger group here are jumping on russel a little too quickly, when I got married we had to do the blood test (it's no longer required in this State), and to be honest I know that it was a pretty standard thing in most states at that time. A lot of them were repealed very rapidly in the 90s as they were seen as an "old school" outdated practice from the turn of the century.
I think your view of the importance of privacy laws (or rather the lack thereof) is outdated and doesn't reflect the amount of information now routinely and easily gathered about individuals.
Please, I'm not some white hair unfamiliar with the word around me, I'm a technological trailblazer. I just don't actually think nonsense people spew out into the internet is very important from a privacy perspective. I view the Internet as fundamentally not a private place, akin to a public street. If I wear a shirt out in public that says "I have a fetish for goats", then that's not private. If I put that out on the Internet, that's not private. If I want something to be private, I don't say it in public places or share it publicly, and I'd be upset if the government came to it without a warrant. But if the government in some large sweeping surveillance effort accumulates embarrassing data about me that I freely put on the Internet (which they'd likely never look at anyway), that's on me.
I am with you on the material people knowingly and voluntarily publish about themselves. Where we part company is there is a lot of information people are compelled to disclose to employers, financial institutions, government etc that should be protected.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:04:35 PM
It is true, he made an overreach. Oh well.
If he's wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 04:04:35 PM
It is true, he made an overreach. Oh well.
If he's wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?
Many things but I don't see why that matters. I've been the main one arguing the position in this thread. :P
Poor Bree. :(
I'm a fan of her work. :)
Seems like this attitude has had predictable ramifications.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual-health/cdc-sees-alarming-increase-sexually-transmitted-diseases-n465071
QuoteAnother big factor is a change in behavior among gay and bisexual men.
"The increase in syphilis among gay men is concerning because we have been seeing this increase for almost a decade," Bolan said. "It seems to correlate with the advent of HIV treatment."
Bolan's quick to say that HIV treatment is not responsible for the change. But the cocktails of powerful HIV drugs that are now available have made the infection a chronic disease that can be managed, instead of a death sentence. HIV patients know they can stay healthy if they take the drugs, and that they are less likely to infect someone else.
"People are excited about it," Bolan said. And some may have stopped using condoms so consistently, because they are no longer afraid of a deadly infection.
"But, unfortunately, HIV treatment has no impact on prevention of (other) STDs," she added. "Unless you are using condoms consistently and correctly, you are putting yourself at risk for STDs."
And uninfected people can also take HIV drugs to protect themselves from infection. That might make people think they're even safer from HIV. A study just published Monday supports this. Researchers across the country found that people at high risk of HIV who took the drugs in a practice called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP almost never caught HIV, but they did catch syphilis and gonorrhea.
"There is some data suggesting that there is less condom use in some populations now," Bolan said.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 05:00:52 PM
Seems like this attitude has had predictable ramifications.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual-health/cdc-sees-alarming-increase-sexually-transmitted-diseases-n465071
QuoteAnother big factor is a change in behavior among gay and bisexual men.
"The increase in syphilis among gay men is concerning because we have been seeing this increase for almost a decade," Bolan said. "It seems to correlate with the advent of HIV treatment."
Bolan's quick to say that HIV treatment is not responsible for the change. But the cocktails of powerful HIV drugs that are now available have made the infection a chronic disease that can be managed, instead of a death sentence. HIV patients know they can stay healthy if they take the drugs, and that they are less likely to infect someone else.
"People are excited about it," Bolan said. And some may have stopped using condoms so consistently, because they are no longer afraid of a deadly infection.
"But, unfortunately, HIV treatment has no impact on prevention of (other) STDs," she added. "Unless you are using condoms consistently and correctly, you are putting yourself at risk for STDs."
And uninfected people can also take HIV drugs to protect themselves from infection. That might make people think they're even safer from HIV. A study just published Monday supports this. Researchers across the country found that people at high risk of HIV who took the drugs in a practice called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP almost never caught HIV, but they did catch syphilis and gonorrhea.
"There is some data suggesting that there is less condom use in some populations now," Bolan said.
Ah that's the attitude borne of not dying if you aren't safe - not the attitude that people shouldn't be imprisoned for lack of disclosure. :wacko:
I wonder if garbon extends his aversion to mandating disclosure beyond sexual matters. For example, if I'm trying to sell shares in my publicly traded business, should I have to disclose potential risks to the business?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2015, 05:18:26 PM
I wonder if garbon extends his aversion to mandating disclosure beyond sexual matters. For example, if I'm trying to sell shares in my publicly traded business, should I have to disclose potential risks to the business?
Why would a shareholder have to disclose anything when selling their shares in a publicly traded company? I suspect what you meant to say is disclosure requirements of an IPO?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2015, 05:18:26 PM
I wonder if garbon extends his aversion to mandating disclosure beyond sexual matters. For example, if I'm trying to sell shares in my publicly traded business, should I have to disclose potential risks to the business?
Why would a shareholder have to disclose anything when selling their shares in a publicly traded company? I suspect what you meant to say is disclosure requirements of an IPO?
Yes.
I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 05:42:35 PM
I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.
Who?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 05:42:35 PM
I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.
Who?
Ex Boyfriend of one of Caliga's favorite porn stars.
Quote from: katmai on November 17, 2015, 06:06:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 05:42:35 PM
I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.
Who?
Ex Boyfriend of one of Caliga's favorite porn stars.
Oh, that guy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 05:51:13 PM
Who?
The guy who tried to replace Michael J Fox on Spin City.
i never knew there was a debate about STD laws. why shouldn't we require people to disclose to partners the fact they have herpes/HIV/etc.? the gay community traumatized by HIV outbreaks, causing them to always question... that makes sense for the gay community. but not everyone outside the gay community goes into a sexual encounter with a stranger with such a strong mentality.
Charlie is A-List? :yeahright:
Finally his poor father can say something positive about his son.
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 09:56:25 PM
Finally his poor father can say something positive about his son.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
I laughed at that one.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
i never knew there was a debate about STD laws. why shouldn't we require people to disclose to partners the fact they have herpes/HIV/etc.?
Asked and answered.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 08:06:08 PMthe gay community traumatized by HIV outbreaks, causing them to always question... that makes sense for the gay community. but not everyone outside the gay community goes into a sexual encounter with a stranger with such a strong mentality.
Maybe if heterosexuals were a bit more circumspect about raw dicking randos, STDs wouldn't be as prevalent.
I think this has also to do with different vectors of HIV infection.
Generally, the risk of a man getting HIV from a woman through vaginal intercourse is very limited - so, not only the risk of the disease being passed on infinitely through a contact with multiple sexual partners is very limited, but also the risk is almost entirely that of the woman. So heterosexual men do not care that much about it and not necessarily because they only have sex with healthy women.
Compare this to anal sex between men, where the risk is not only shared by both partners (even though it is much greater for the passive partner), but furthermore the risk of the infection being passed on is much greater (also because many gay men who practice anal sex are into switching roles).
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 08:06:08 PM
i never knew there was a debate about STD laws. why shouldn't we require people to disclose to partners the fact they have herpes/HIV/etc.? the gay community traumatized by HIV outbreaks, causing them to always question... that makes sense for the gay community. but not everyone outside the gay community goes into a sexual encounter with a stranger with such a strong mentality.
Most sexually active people in the Western world have herpes...
Incidentally, why limit yourself to STD - you can catch a lot of other diseases from your sexual partners that are not strictly speaking STDs, but that can be just as if not more dangerous - such as mononucleosis.
And while we are at it, why only limit the disclosure to sexual encounters. If I am sharing a room with a colleague at work and he has, say, tuberculosis or mononucleosis or toxoplasmosis - all of which can be airborne - why shouldn't he be required to disclose that to me?
Perhaps we should have everyone carry their medical record on display for everyone to see, much like medieval lepers were required to carry a bell.
Also herpes still strikes me as an outlier in that bunch, given its effects and that while it has been known of for quite some time, wasn't actually considered a big deal until a pharma company wanted some profits in the 20th century.
In the U.S. only about 1:6 sexually active people have genital herpes. Not sure if > 50% do in the "Western world" but that's hilarious if true.
I think the figure was WHO saying 2/3 of the world has herpes. Also probably a mistake to try and focus in on genital herpes given that the herpes type 1 and type 2 can be both oral and genital though skewed towards one or the other.
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-je-suis-charlie-hollywood-reacts.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
You trying to tell us something? :hmm:
:lol: Seedy
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 03:59:44 AMMaybe if heterosexuals were a bit more circumspect about raw dicking randos, STDs wouldn't be as prevalent.
that's not the reality on the ground, though. sure, in a perfect world everyone looks at the opposite sex and thinks, "this person very likely could have the herp, so i'll wrap up." but, that doesn't happen. the straight community hasn't been traumatized as much as, apparently, the gay community.
also, the studies/summarized research posted, are those specifically tailored to HIV or do they cover all STD laws? i glossed over them
Quote from: MartinusIncidentally, why limit yourself to STD - you can catch a lot of other diseases from your sexual partners that are not strictly speaking STDs, but that can be just as if not more dangerous - such as mononucleosis.
And while we are at it, why only limit the disclosure to sexual encounters. If I am sharing a room with a colleague at work and he has, say, tuberculosis or mononucleosis or toxoplasmosis - all of which can be airborne - why shouldn't he be required to disclose that to me?
Perhaps we should have everyone carry their medical record on display for everyone to see, much like medieval lepers were required to carry a bell.
because the goal is to prevent STDs from spreading throughout communities, and STDs occur through sex. it's easily prevented with simple legislation. it isn't an airborne disease, which would be harder to legislate because such laws would violate fundamental rights. there's no fundamental right to be protected against informing your partners that you've got the herp.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2015, 11:33:15 PM
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-je-suis-charlie-hollywood-reacts.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2015, 11:33:15 PM
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-je-suis-charlie-hollywood-reacts.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
:lol:
Brilliant
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 12:02:01 AM
that's not the reality on the ground, though. sure, in a perfect world everyone looks at the opposite sex and thinks, "this person very likely could have the herp, so i'll wrap up." but, that doesn't happen. the straight community hasn't been traumatized as much as, apparently, the gay community.
I don't see why that means we should have punishments ready on the books.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 12:02:01 AMalso, the studies/summarized research posted, are those specifically tailored to HIV or do they cover all STD laws? i glossed over them
Most of what I have posted has been HIV specific as that was the topic at hand.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 12:02:01 AM
because the goal is to prevent STDs from spreading throughout communities, and STDs occur through sex. it's easily prevented with simple legislation. it isn't an airborne disease, which would be harder to legislate because such laws would violate fundamental rights. there's no fundamental right to be protected against informing your partners that you've got the herp.
But what I've noted shows that it is unlikely such laws actually prevent spread. People who are going to disclose and take precautions will already do so. Those who don't are unlikely to do so because of fear of a law (particularly given that many people don't even know).
Also, I can think of many, many, many more important things for the gov't to spend resources on ahead of herpes non-disclosure/transmission prosecutions. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2015, 05:28:43 PM
But what I've noted shows that it is unlikely such laws actually prevent spread. People who are going to disclose and take precautions will already do so. Those who don't are unlikely to do so because of fear of a law (particularly given that many people don't even know).
Maybe so, but jailing people will prevent spread to the general public.
Way back in the day, the ambulance company I worked for had the contact for an aids clinic--we would routinely get calls to the clinic when patients needed transport to the hospital. When we picked up the patients, the staff would give us their medical charts.
One dude we picked up had a very interesting chart--after his HIV diagnosis, he had picked up a series of STD infections on a rather frequent basis over a number of years. It turned out he needed to be admitted to the hospital--and was being admitted to the floor dedicated to AIDS patients at the major metropolitan Atlanta hospital. The guy freaked out: "people don't know, this will ruin my life"--he was moved to another floor. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what was probably going on. I strongly considered anonymously contacting his family and workplace to let them know his status--if people knew, maybe at least some people could protect themselves. I didn't do it, but I still have misgivings that not speaking up was the correct moral course of action.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2015, 05:28:43 PMI don't see why that means we should have punishments ready on the books.
because it seems effective
QuoteMost of what I have posted has been HIV specific as that was the topic at hand.
QuoteBut what I've noted shows that it is unlikely such laws actually prevent spread.
don't druggies and gays comprise most of the HIV community? if so, then with what you've said about the gay community, seems like those HIV-focused studies are going to be flawed when considering the wider topic of STD laws in general. there's no sense to remove HIV STD laws when much less life threatening STDs retain STD laws.
QuotePeople who are going to disclose and take precautions will already do so. Those who don't are unlikely to do so because of fear of a law (particularly given that many people don't even know).
most people aren't gonna murder, either, law or no law. but you have people who will find out they have an STD and will continue having sex regardless. in those cases, having an STD law makes sense to try to minimize such conduct. it's not gonna 100% prevent STDs from spreading, but any bit helps.
QuoteAlso, I can think of many, many, many more important things for the gov't to spend resources on ahead of herpes non-disclosure/transmission prosecutions. :D
i don't think the government spends much resource on this
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 12:02:46 AM
because it seems effective
By what metric?
Quotemost people aren't gonna murder, either, law or no law. but you have people who will find out they have an STD and will continue having sex regardless. in those cases, having an STD law makes sense to try to minimize such conduct. it's not gonna 100% prevent STDs from spreading, but any bit helps.
Why are we limiting this just to STDs? Why don't we punish all people who knowingly expose others to a disease they have? Why limit it to sexually transmitted ones?
I mean, maybe the threat of a week in gaol and a criminal record will stop jerks from coming into the office and giving everyone else the flu so they can look like they're hard workers. That'd be great.
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2015, 12:30:06 AMBy what metric?
the metric of criminal code. these laws are triggered by people with STDs not revealing their condition. unless you're a whore, you're going to have to reveal it anyway before you can establish some relationship. so, why not prosecute bad people who do bad things? that's what society does.
QuoteWhy are we limiting this just to STDs? Why don't we punish all people who knowingly expose others to a disease they have? Why limit it to sexually transmitted ones?
I mean, maybe the threat of a week in gaol and a criminal record will stop jerks from coming into the office and giving everyone else the flu so they can look like they're hard workers. That'd be great.
because that would probably violate some fundamental rights. also, in the most extreme situations, i believe it's lawful to detain people and force them into quarantine.
flu isn't a permanent disease. it might be more deadly, but it's not contagious for very long, is it? i think a better argument is something like leprosy, but it seems these days even leprosy can be treated so it's not contagious (at all).
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 12:02:46 AM
don't druggies and gays comprise most of the HIV community? if so, then with what you've said about the gay community, seems like those HIV-focused studies are going to be flawed when considering the wider topic of STD laws in general. there's no sense to remove HIV STD laws when much less life threatening STDs retain STD laws.
most people aren't gonna murder, either, law or no law. but you have people who will find out they have an STD and will continue having sex regardless. in those cases, having an STD law makes sense to try to minimize such conduct. it's not gonna 100% prevent STDs from spreading, but any bit helps.
Probably even worse at prevention in general. After all, who knows their state's laws regarding STD disclosure? And as I have already covered at length, no the little bit on HIV does not help. It hurts!
Here's a quick run-down of what I could find (though several articles suggested that most STD stuff - sans HIV - goes down as civil cases) by state:
Has laws against HIV & other STDs (29)
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah (though looks to really be any communicable disease with strict laws against HIV)
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Laws on HIV only (13)
Arkansas
California (though also if you expose anyone to any infectious, communicable or contagious disease)
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri (though actually looks like hepatitis might also be included)
None (9)
Alaska
Arizona (though public exposure of any infectious disease)
Connecticut
Delaware (none apart from donation of blood/organs)
DC
Hawaii
Kentucky (none though they have applied wanton endangerment statues to prosecute HIV+)
Maine
Massachusetts
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2015, 12:30:06 AMBy what metric?
the metric of criminal code. these laws are triggered by people with STDs not revealing their condition. unless you're a whore, you're going to have to reveal it anyway before you can establish some relationship. so, why not prosecute bad people who do bad things? that's what society does.
The fact that a law exists is sufficient justification for the existence for the law? I am sure you didn't actually mean that.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2015, 03:51:20 AMProbably even worse at prevention in general. After all, who knows their state's laws regarding STD disclosure? And as I have already covered at length, no the little bit on HIV does not help. It hurts!
no no, the STD laws in general. i believe what you're saying about the HIV studies. what i'm saying is that those studies might not carry over to other STDs for reasons stated earlier. in other words, STDs (except HIV) laws might have a net societal gain.
QuoteHere's a quick run-down of what I could find (though several articles suggested that most STD stuff - sans HIV - goes down as civil cases) by state:
Has laws against HIV & other STDs (29)
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah (though looks to really be any communicable disease with strict laws against HIV)
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Laws on HIV only (13)
Arkansas
California (though also if you expose anyone to any infectious, communicable or contagious disease)
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri (though actually looks like hepatitis might also be included)
None (9)
Alaska
Arizona (though public exposure of any infectious disease)
Connecticut
Delaware (none apart from donation of blood/organs)
DC
Hawaii
Kentucky (none though they have applied wanton endangerment statues to prosecute HIV+)
Maine
Massachusetts
an eight-state minority is pretty small. thanks for checking, though! interesting to see
Quote from: crazy canuckThe fact that a law exists is sufficient justification for the existence for the law? I am sure you didn't actually mean that.
no. criminal code = the whole code, not a single law.
Perhaps I am missing your point. You said the law was effective. Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code. That seems awfully circular.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 01:49:46 PM
Perhaps I am missing your point. You said the law was effective. Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code. That seems awfully circular.
not that it's in the code, but the rationale and reasoning behind the criminal code as a whole. society seeks to stop bad people from doing bad acts. the same rationale for legislating against any other crime exists for STD laws: it presumably works (except HIV laws, apparently)
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 01:49:46 PM
Perhaps I am missing your point. You said the law was effective. Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code. That seems awfully circular.
not that it's in the code, but the rationale and reasoning behind the criminal code as a whole. society seeks to stop bad people from doing bad acts. the same rationale for legislating against any other crime exists for STD laws: it presumably works (except HIV laws, apparently)
Ok, but just because there are laws in a code doesn't mean they are effective.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 01:54:54 PMOk, but just because there are laws in a code doesn't mean they are effective.
agreed
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 01:49:46 PM
Perhaps I am missing your point. You said the law was effective. Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code. That seems awfully circular.
not that it's in the code, but the rationale and reasoning behind the criminal code as a whole. society seeks to stop bad people from doing bad acts. the same rationale for legislating against any other crime exists for STD laws: it presumably works (except HIV laws, apparently)
You said it seemed an effective approach, and I'm curious how it could be effective.
The existence of the law does not prove that it is effective in achieving its stated objective.
So yeah... I remain puzzled.
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2015, 01:57:10 PMYou said it seemed an effective approach, and I'm curious how it could be effective.
The existence of the law does not prove that it is effective in achieving its stated objective.
So yeah... I remain puzzled.
are laws against theft/murder/etc. effective?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2015, 01:57:10 PMYou said it seemed an effective approach, and I'm curious how it could be effective.
The existence of the law does not prove that it is effective in achieving its stated objective.
So yeah... I remain puzzled.
are laws against theft/murder/etc. effective?
Of course, they are in the code.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2015, 01:57:10 PMYou said it seemed an effective approach, and I'm curious how it could be effective.
The existence of the law does not prove that it is effective in achieving its stated objective.
So yeah... I remain puzzled.
are laws against theft/murder/etc. effective?
Effective in the sense that they prevent those acts from occurring. No. The laws alone are not effective. If you mean effective in the sense of giving the state a lawful means of apprehending and punishing then yes they are more effective in that sense. But I think you are conflating the ability to punish with the ability to prevent. What prevents those acts more than anything are cultural pressures.
there are cultural pressures against insider trading?
This is a weird discussion...
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 09:10:29 PM
there are cultural pressures against insider trading?
No, that's why it can't really be prevented, just punished.
I haven't been following the brouhaha about Charlie Sheen but many people seem to have commented how badly the US mainstream media have handled this, from conflating HIV with AIDS, to treating HIV as a death sentence, to running a sort of 1980s' style scare campaign pathologising HIV infection. It's as if the last 20 years of HIV education didn't happen. garbon and others, care to comment?
Who are these "many people"?
Besides moron Howard Stern i haven't heard anything bout HIV=AIDS
As to other claims, i haven't been watching enough media to see those claims either.
Quote from: katmai on November 23, 2015, 03:33:37 AM
Who are these "many people"?
Besides moron Howard Stern i haven't heard anything bout HIV=AIDS
As to other claims, i haven't been watching enough media to see those claims either.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2015, 01:39:51 AM
I haven't been following the brouhaha about Charlie Sheen but many people seem to have commented how badly the US mainstream media have handled this, from conflating HIV with AIDS, to treating HIV as a death sentence, to running a sort of 1980s' style scare campaign pathologising HIV infection. It's as if the last 20 years of HIV education didn't happen. garbon and others, care to comment?
I haven't really followed the story that much (because, really, any news outlet devoting more than a minute of airtime or a paragraph of print to Charlie Sheen's health--or that of any other Hollywood celebrity--isn't really much of a news outlet), but the bolded part is just par for the course. Everything is over-hyped. Every storm is the Storm of the Century, every big athletic match-up is the game of the century, etc.