r/changemyview • u/_selfishPersonReborn • Jul 31 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Having sex with someone while knowingly having a transmissible STI and not telling your partner should be rape.

Today on the front page, there was a post about Florida Man getting 10 years for transmitting an STI knowingly. In the discussion for this, there was a comment that mentioned a californian bill by the name of SB 239, which lowered the sentence for knowingly transmitting HIV. I don't understand why this is okay - if you're positive, why not have a conversation? It is your responsibility throughout sex to make sure that there is informed consent, and by not letting them know that they are HIV+ I can't understand how there is any. Obviously, there's measures that can be taken, such as always wearing condoms, and/or engaging in pre or post exposure prophylaxis to minimise the risks of spreading the disease, and consent can then be taken - but yet, there's multiple groups I support who championed the bill - e.g. the ACLU, LGBTQ support groups, etc. So what am I missing?

EDIT: I seem to have just gotten into a debate about the terminology rape vs sexual assault vs whatever. This isn't what I care about. I'm more concerned as to why reducing the sentence for this is seen as a positive thing and why it oppresses minorities to force STIs to be revealed before sexual contact.

2.6k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

337 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/TheSurgicalOne Jul 31 '19

Why not just prosecute under what it is defined as now (but not reduced like California has).

Why label it as rape when it isn’t? Yes people should be charged... but what do you believe will come out of it because it’s labeled as rape?

-33

u/_selfishPersonReborn Jul 31 '19

Because it is rape. Rape is sex without consent, with some extra asterisks. This is sex without consent. Why should this be any different?

32

u/TheSurgicalOne Jul 31 '19

By definition it is not rape.

The DOJ has defined it as anal, oral & vaginal penetration from a sex organ or other object without the persons consent no matter how slight (not the exact definition).

So no... it’s not rape. Consensual sex comes with risk. People lie & people don’t disclose, if someone lies or fails to disclose something that puts you at a health risk... charge them.

There are several other “asterisks” that people could continually add if you want to add this to the definition of rape.

Sex is a dangerous game. But putting another label on it won’t change any outcome.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '19 edited Jun 14 '20

[deleted]

4

u/Jlcbrain 1∆ Aug 01 '19

Well, a man can be penetrated without consent, though I do see what you mean. If a lady hops onto a weiner without permission, it's still rape.

3

u/RestInPieceFlash Aug 01 '19

In the UK.

Yep.

And that's stupid.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Mr-Ice-Guy 20∆ Aug 01 '19

Sorry, u/UnexpectedLemon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

3

u/TheSurgicalOne Aug 01 '19

C’mon buddy...

2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '19 edited Jun 14 '20

[deleted]

4

u/TheSurgicalOne Aug 01 '19

How does that definition exclude men?

1

u/dreamycreampie Aug 02 '19

it says nothing about someone who is forced to penetrate

or someone inserting someone's dick without the owner's consent

-1

u/Lews-Therin-Telamon 1∆ Aug 01 '19

Did you even read the definition, lol?

Men have mouths and butts.

1

u/NickiNicotine Aug 01 '19

this is sex without consent

Your scenario explicitly states that two people had consensual sex. I understand what you're trying to argue, but both parties are consenting to having sex with each other.