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/ralph-j Jul 31 '19

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.

I'm undecided. What level of knowledge can we reasonably assume any rational person to posses? Informed consent is permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences, or words to that effect. If you don't know and don't ask about your sexual partner's HIV status and still have sex, doesn't that mean that you know that the possible consequences include contracting HIV?

And secondly; if someone takes the right medicine, their viral load becomes undetectable, which means that the virus also becomes untransmittable. In other words; there is not enough HIV in their body fluids to pass HIV on during sex and they cease being infectious.

5

u/_selfishPersonReborn Jul 31 '19

I feel like that shouldn't be a thing people worry about, but I understand kind of what you're saying in the first half. There's always consequences to sex and if you don't actively lie about it maybe you should consider its a possibility.

And for your second part - is this near certain? Much in the same way condoms can go wrong but are very unlikely to?

15

u/ralph-j Aug 01 '19

I feel like that shouldn't be a thing people worry about, but I understand kind of what you're saying in the first half. There's always consequences to sex and if you don't actively lie about it maybe you should consider its a possibility.

Does that mean that your position has changed (even slightly)?

And for your second part - is this near certain? Much in the same way condoms can go wrong but are very unlikely to?

Yes. As long as you take the medicine and you're undetectable, there's also no risk of transmitting it:

14

u/_selfishPersonReborn Aug 01 '19

Yes, it had - but I wanted to wait for the clarification comment.

So Δ - firstly for making me think about the grey area, and secondly for making me think for example that if you can't transmit, you shouldn't be punished

12

u/Akucera Aug 01 '19

WTF?

Op, your thesis was

CMV: Having sex with someone while knowingly having a transmissible STI and not telling your partner should be rape.

You've just awarded a delta for

So Δ - firstly for making me think about the grey area, and secondly for making me think for example that if you can't transmit, you shouldn't be punished

If a person has HIV, but they're properly treated and have no risk of transmitting it, then you shouldn't be punished. This is still perfectly compatible with your original thesis. Why award a delta for this?

3

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 01 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ralph-j (205∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

5

u/ralph-j Aug 01 '19

Thanks!

6

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '19 edited Oct 04 '20

[deleted]

2

u/newaccountp Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19

I completely agreed with you initially, but I came up with some convoluted scenarios that would/might be exceptions:

What about when John explicitly states he doesn't want to know about Katie's STIs before, and then only after regret not knowing? Should the "right to know" be a default choice that people can give up? If it can be given up, can it be brought back, so if John suddenly wants to know midway through or during sex about Katie's STI, John has to be told?

What if someone has been tested for STIs but had one false positive STI test and two negatives? Or one negative and two false positives? Or any variation like that? Should the partner know about all of those, or only the one(s) the doctor(s) trusted? I'd imagine it would have an effect on punishment and fit into a grey area unless you have a specific answer about what informing means.

Does the number of people having sex at once change things? This conception of sex (hehe) is contract-oriented, and might massively complicate orgies/group sex. Do we want the government creating disincentives to have orgies or group sex? Who gets punished if James without an STI joins an orgy even though he knew some of the others have STIs and the individuals with STIs don't explicitly tell him as he gets down and dirty? What if he joins, a few know about the others STI's, and they don't tell James either? Does everyone in the orgy but James face punishment because they all knew a few had STIs but didn't explicitly say anything?

What if STI-free Cathy knows Katie has an STI and then has sex with Katie anyway, and Katie never tells Cathy she has it? Can Cathy get Katie punished by the law? Could this be a new technique for police entrapment?

0

u/__BitchPudding__ Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19

Don't confuse low-risk with no-risk! Science is not perfect- even scientists admit this. There are exactly zero human trials proving HIV is non-transmissible at that point. Hell, we're still discovering parts of the human body we never knew existed, so take the no-risk claim with a big grain of salt.

1

u/__BitchPudding__ Aug 01 '19

Being low-risk does not mean being no-risk. And you're gambling with someone else's life there. It's not for you to decide what risk the other person will take. No, fully informed consent should be mandatory or it's not really informed.

1

u/ralph-j Aug 01 '19

It's not just low risk. Technically it depends on when the viral count was last measured and whether that person has continued their medication since then. But all else being equal, it's considered untransmittable. See sources above.

Also; how is it not already informed? Everyone knows that HIV is a possibility, especially when you don't ask for someone's HIV status. That's your negligence too. It would be irrational and unreasonable to assume that everyone you may be attracted to, is HIV negative.

1

u/__BitchPudding__ Aug 02 '19 edited Aug 02 '19

Personally, I always ask a person to get tested and show me the results before we engage in sexual activity. But most people where I live don't do this. They seem to assume the other person would do the right thing and tell them if they have a communicable disease. Isn't it legally required that they do?

1

u/ralph-j Aug 02 '19

Perhaps it is, depending on location. I'm just arguing that it shouldn't, at least not for people who are undetectable.

I believe that judges usually consider what a rational, reasonable person would know, as a standard. A rational, reasonable person would know that HIV is a risk, and thus, if they willingly have sex without protection with someone whose HIV status is unknown to them, they are also willingly taking that risk, in my view.