Knowingly transmitting HIV no longer felony in California

[Goosey 3,017]

4 minutes ago, River said:

2. You know the risks, you are not a child, if you do bareback and fully aware of the risks and the options to prevent it but still do it, it’s your fault.

If you ask your partner about their status and they lie to you, that should be a crime. 

[River 128,843]

8 minutes ago, Goosey said:

If you ask your partner about their status and they lie to you, that should be a crime. 

Depends

if it’s someone you meet for one night, it should be a default behavior of you to consider them as an HIV+ by default and you shouldn’t believe them, always use a condom that you brought too and if they insist on bareback just go, just never do bareback with unknown people and if you start a relationship do a test before you take off the condom!!!

please people be responsible for your health!!

will you trust an unknown man who offers you a ride but he smells from alcohol but he tells you that he’s not drunk?

now, If it happens by cheating and the partner is not telling, I think this should be a crime because here we can say that there is a blind trust and you never should question your partner and they brought the virus to home.

 

[Adakam 2]

I think it depends on the situation, in the case of one night stands and grindr meetups noone has a valid excuse to go bareback for the simple reason that its not only liars you need to worry about but also those who dont even know theyre carrying something (not only HIV). You are putting yourself at risk, and eventually put others at risk before you realize you are a carrier. If you dont trust a stranger with your credit card number why would you trust him with your life?

But if its a case of condom tampering, cheating on an ongoing relationship, showing fake tests, or the mythical "needle with aids blood hidden in a seat somewhere random", then yes, it is a crime and should be treated as such, because you had no way of avoiding it.

 

[Economy 53,140]

16 hours ago, Venusfly said:

The people that took away this law need HIV tests publicised tbh

Honestly, what occured to me is that at least some resonsible for this change have HIV themselves and want to be able to have sex without huge jail time if they are caught  

[re di tutto 924]

Idiots.

[gagaslefttatoo 264]

how's that even possible ?

[Seeka 12,372]

8 hours ago, River said:

1. They have HIV and not AIDS.

2. You know the risks, you are not a child, if you do bareback and fully aware of the risks and the options to prevent it but still do it, it’s your fault.

it’s kinda tiring to hear those who do bareback but blaming the rest of the world but not themselves, we are not at the 80s when the knowledge about HIV was minimal and the treatment was bad.

 It’s takes 2 or more for sex, but it’s only you who made the decision to say yes to bareback, you can always take control and think with your brain and not your penis and say no and go home.

Yes but the other person can also be responsible and say "If you're doing bareback, I can't do this."

You make it sound like its entirely the other person's fault. While it is not. You're basically kinkshaming. The fault will always be 50-50.

While yes, the barebacker shares just as much blame, your argument holds true for the person with the disease. He should also be able to think with his brain and not his penis and say "He's not being smart about his, I shouldn't have sex with him.".

You just want to blame someone who has preferences, not hold everyone responsible.

[PoshLife 17,019]

"The new law will also include those who donate blood without disclosing their HIV status to the blood bank, the LA Times noted."

This is bad public policy.

[rpggal 332]

14 hours ago, IndieKylie said:

Exactly. HIV is a life-long disease that requires on-going medication, when one discovers they have it. Knowingly exposing someone is a) dangerous and b) life-changing. This isn't about stigmas, it's about the reality of living with HIV and the possibility of it spreading. If you knowingly withhold your status and pass it on to a partner, they could in turn transmit it to more people. This is far from progressive, the fact that they have tried to label it as such is a disgrace to any modern progressive movement.

Don't you think that placing legal liability with the threat of imprisonment for knowingly having unprotected sex with HIV incentivizes people who are already anxious about getting tested to not get treated in the first place? A lot of people are not aware of the fact that it is not a death sentence and may have the attitude that if they have it they have it anyway, and why get tested if it just places an astronomical threat of losing up to 8 years of your life locked in a cage and legally enslaved for private companies when you could legally continue to have unprotected sex not knowing and still risk infecting people? Treating a disease as a public health issue rather than a crime means doing everything you can to incentivize knowledge and treatment of the disease, which in turn decreases infectivity by decreasing viral loads in infected individuals. Increasing the fear of knowing your status does absolutely nothing to help that.

On the moral issue: do you also think it should be an imprisonable offense to have unprotected sex without knowing your status, since you also knowingly run the risk of infecting someone, since as long as you have had unprotected sex before, your risk is non-zero? What if you told them you were a virgin, and had 0% risk, but you weren't? Should that be imprisonable? If your response is that knowing your positive status makes it incredibly likely to transmit whereas not knowing makes it unlikely, that is not the case. HIV has incredibly low infectivity, and **** penetration from an infected partner who is not on treatment has only 1.3% infectivity, transmission from oral sex and being on top is even lower still (virtually negligible). A treated individual can have viral loads so low as to not be detected in transmissible fluids and therefore intransmissible. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimates/riskbehaviors.html

What about the knowing transmission of HPV, which greatly increases your risk of cancer and currently has no cure as well (the kinds that cause cancer anyway). Modern medicine would say that HPV with all available treatment (none) is more deadly due to cancer than HIV with all available treatment, yet it is not an imprisonable offense to knowingly transmit HPV. Do you think it should be? If your response is that HPV has a vaccine, HIV also has prevention, and that is a condom.

These are not rhetorical questions, I am sincerely trying to guage your feelings on what is and is not sufficiently egregious to justify putting someone in a cage for several years (where they will be raped repeatedly) and forcing them to be a slave for a private company, which is what a prison sentence is in this country. Do you really feel that not disclosing the exact risk of transmission at the time of sex, which is only 1.3% maximum, when the other party had every opportunity to prevent the transmission by wearing a condom, warrants several years of dehumanization, rape, and slavery? Because that's what a prison sentence is in the US. 

[Guest]

lol in the us, those who know about being positive, are usually also treated - which means they cant transmit the virus. so all good

[River 128,843]

54 minutes ago, Seeka said:

Yes but the other person can also be responsible and say "If you're doing bareback, I can't do this."

You make it sound like its entirely the other person's fault. While it is not. You're basically kinkshaming. The fault will always be 50-50.

While yes, the barebacker shares just as much blame, your argument holds true for the person with the disease. He should also be able to think with his brain and not his penis and say "He's not being smart about his, I shouldn't have sex with him.".

You just want to blame someone who has preferences, not hold everyone responsible.

Do you really think that a person that you just met for a quick sex needs to show you his medical file?

and if you ask someone “do you have hiv?” They will say no in any case because of the stigma and it’s rude..

I’m not kinkshaming, I’m just stressing that as long as you want to do bareback while knowing the risk of getting hiv, be mature and just take the blame to yourself.

I don’t think someone needs to be in jail because you like bareback!

It’s like a smoker who knows the risks of cigarettes will sue the cigarettes company after they get lungs cancer and blames them that they didn’t explicitly write that smoking gives you lungs cancer..

[Seeka 12,372]

3 minutes ago, River said:

Do you really think that a person that you just met for a quick sex needs to show you his medical file?

and if you ask someone “do you have hiv?” They will say no in any case because of the stigma and it’s rude..

I’m not kinkshaming, I’m just stressing that as long as you want to do bareback while knowing the risk of getting hiv, be mature and just take the blame to yourself.

I don’t think someone needs to be in jail because you like bareback!

It’s like a smoker who knows the risks of cigarettes will sue the cigarettes company after they get lungs cancer and blames them that they didn’t explicitly write that smoking gives you lungs cancer..

Oh my god, all I'm getting from you is "HIV people are special and shouldn't be blamed for what happens after sex."

I know what you're getting at, but the world doesn't work like that. A person who has HIV just wants to be treated normally, right? They want to be treated equally, right?

Then they deserve 50% of the blame of what happens after.

If a normal guy shouldn't be going out and having one night stands bareback, then a guy with HIV shouldn't either.

Everything that applies to a normal guy should also apply to a guy with HIV.

 

Basically a guy with any sort of STD is not that different from a guy without an STD. Except for the fact he can give another person said STD.

 

The main reason why this law was created though was for evil people. There were people with HIV who on purposefully transmitted the disease to others. People who have accidents, they usually will settle this on their own. But people could die from HIV because they don't know they have it, and there needed to be reprimand for that.

I'm no saying I approve every person who accidentally receives HIV to make a criminal case about it. I just want them treated equally. Those who transmit it purposefully, wantonly, like a serial killer, do need punishment though.

 

[River 128,843]

37 minutes ago, Seeka said:

Oh my god, all I'm getting from you is "HIV people are special and shouldn't be blamed for what happens after sex."

I know what you're getting at, but the world doesn't work like that. A person who has HIV just wants to be treated normally, right? They want to be treated equally, right?

Then they deserve 50% of the blame of what happens after.

If a normal guy shouldn't be going out and having one night stands bareback, then a guy with HIV shouldn't either.

Everything that applies to a normal guy should also apply to a guy with HIV.

 

Basically a guy with any sort of STD is not that different from a guy without an STD. Except for the fact he can give another person said STD.

 

The main reason why this law was created though was for evil people. There were people with HIV who on purposefully transmitted the disease to others. People who have accidents, they usually will settle this on their own. But people could die from HIV because they don't know they have it, and there needed to be reprimand for that.

I'm no saying I approve every person who accidentally receives HIV to make a criminal case about it. I just want them treated equally. Those who transmit it purposefully, wantonly, like a serial killer, do need punishment though.

 

I don't know how old you are but your opinion sounds very young and lack of knowledge about sex and HIV and self-responsibility, I'm 29 soon, learned the hard way about the gay sex scene, I volunteered in the HIV association in my country for 2 years and I have 2 friends with HIV that both of them are in a relationship with HIV negative partner. the world is not working as you say, it's not black and white, especially in the gay sexual world, man want to f-ck now and quick, no one has the time to do an HIV test before they f-ck with a guy that tomorrow they wouldn't remember their name..

Unfortunately the gay community is a group in a risk, you and I know that, we have condoms and PrEP and even a treatment of the day after, so for HIV- there are all the tools to protect themselves.

Wanna do bareback? be responsible and take PrEP or go immediately to the hospital to take the day after treatment, with all those tools that you have, all those solution and you still got HIV, why another person should be blamed for it?!

HIV+ people suffering from stigmas until today, so we need to treat them as special people, your posts for example are full of stigmas and can be very offending for a person with HIV, they are not monsters or walking viruses, they are human beings.

And especially now that HIV is considered medically, approved by doctors and not by google, that HIV is not a death penalty deceases and it's inside the same group as diabetes.

[rpggal 332]

50 minutes ago, Seeka said:

Oh my god, all I'm getting from you is "HIV people are special and shouldn't be blamed for what happens after sex."

I know what you're getting at, but the world doesn't work like that. A person who has HIV just wants to be treated normally, right? They want to be treated equally, right?

Then they deserve 50% of the blame of what happens after.

If a normal guy shouldn't be going out and having one night stands bareback, then a guy with HIV shouldn't either.

Everything that applies to a normal guy should also apply to a guy with HIV.

 

Basically a guy with any sort of STD is not that different from a guy without an STD. Except for the fact he can give another person said STD.

 

The main reason why this law was created though was for evil people. There were people with HIV who on purposefully transmitted the disease to others. People who have accidents, they usually will settle this on their own. But people could die from HIV because they don't know they have it, and there needed to be reprimand for that.

I'm no saying I approve every person who accidentally receives HIV to make a criminal case about it. I just want them treated equally. Those who transmit it purposefully, wantonly, like a serial killer, do need punishment though.

 

You say you want them to be treated equally, but can you think of any other case in which a person who commits an act with only 1.3% chance harming the other individual at all, and with proper treatment is not lethal or detrimental health, AND which the other party could have prevented but opted not to, gets imprisoned for up to 8 years? Even DUI is a misdemeanor. 

[StrawberryBlond 15,687]

I can't believe this came from a Democrat. Be a liberal and have freedom...but don't expect to be told what you could potentially be infected with! What do you think this is? A free country? Conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They've been saying that the government's trying to kill the world by poisoning the water supplies for years and now one of the most liberal states in America is going to decriminalise intentionally spreading HIV! It's like living in a sci fi novel right now. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. California had better watch out - now all these sick psychos who want to spread their illness will move there and be protected by the law. I don't know why there's so many of them who want to deliberately infect others but they exist and we don't know how many there are. Protect yourself every time without question and pray to God it's enough.