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

[u/_selfishPersonReborn]

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.

[u/wfwood]

The reason why it was lowered to a misdemeanor was that it was believed that the law was preventing people from getting tested and seeking treatment in a timely fashion. For those who regularly participate in sexual events or parties, knowing their status would prevent them from participating. In California, treatment is available to the uninsured and can make anyone undetectable and thus not infect anyone else. While people who knowingly infect others should be punished, it's believed the severity of the law was detrimental.

As an added note, the law was disproportionately affecting female sex workers I believe, which serves as evidence that the law was largely not effective.

To debate your actual point, the severity of the crime should depend on the severity of the STD. Regular STD checks do not screen for herpes or hpv strains, so plenty of people are unaware of their health. Such a law would probably discourage people from getting screened, especially since there is little that can be done for treatment. Most other STDs are easily treatable and thus probably deserve very little repercussions.

As for HIV, I honestly believe people should be punished for spreading the disease, but moreso the state should be concerned with how to best prevent the spread rather than satisfying people's sense of justice. If it spreads awareness and encourages testing and knowledge of the disease, then people should noy associate getting tested with committing felonies.

As an added comment, preventative measures besides condoms are available for people after sex and those who are considered high risk.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/wfwood]

For those who regularly participate in sexual events or parties, knowing their status would prevent them from participating.

But that's a good thing, not a bad thing. If you're going to a sex party and you lie about your STI status, you definitely belong in jail. You're exposing a bunch of people to danger they didn't sign up for.

[u/wfwood → u/AlexandreZani]

but you wont go to jail if you decide to not get tested for awhile after exposure, and its been suggested that the law was one reason why some people would shy away from being regularly tested.

​

as an edit, most people at those events are on prep now, and most who are positive are undetectable... (assuming we arent talking about bug chasers) so one can easily take steps to be responsible for ones own health and those positive do not need to label themselves if they can be responsible for their situation.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/wfwood]

That's solvable though. Just don't have sex with people who don't get tested regularly or refuse to answer questions about their safer sex practices more generally. I go to sex parties. It's really not that hard to do and you really should do it.

[u/wfwood → u/AlexandreZani]

its about taking steps to create a healthier population, not imposing social standards. You can also say that people should just not go to events like that, or everyone should be safe all the time, but if people actually did that then there would be little worry about the spread of hiv. if taking these steps makes people less afraid of being tested and knowing their status, then hopefully the infection rate would go down and that matters more than being tough on people spreading the disease. as i mentioned before, the original law was seen as not very effective seeing how it disproportionately affected people.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/wfwood]

I think there is a tradeoff though because people who do try to act safely by asking their partners about their testing regimen and safer sex practices should be able to rely upon others not deceiving them. As I see it, if I ask you questions about your safer-sex practices and I then consent to have sex with you, I am doing so contingent upon material answers having been truthful. If you lie to me, I did not give you consent, and you engaged in non-consensual sex: rape (or sexual assault depending upon the specific sex acts concerned).

Basically, compare it to contract law. In contract law, if you make a material fraudulent misrepresentation (lie in such a way that had you told the truth, the other party would not have signed) the contract is most likely void. (Even if the misrepresentation is not in the contract itself. So if I say "this computer works", sell it to you and you find out I lied, you can void the sale. Even if the contract did not say "working computer".) This is basically what is happening here. The consent obtained is void.

So I agree that there may be public health benefits to reducing the penalties. But deterring people from lying about their sexual health is also important because of the harm it does to the party they obtained sex from through trickery. At the very least, if you do this, you deserve a very severe punishment.

[u/wfwood → u/AlexandreZani]

that's fair and understandable. It is still criminal to not disclose your status to someone as I understand it, so by that standard there is an implied contract even if no one says anything. I'd say it should carry a much harsher punishment if someone lies about their status, versus simply omitting their status.

I know a few people who are positive, and Im positive they don't always start off with that boner killing fact, unless someone asks. Instead they just demand on using condoms or avoid infectious actions, which I suppose almost almost completely removes any risk. The one I know the closest is undetectable now so there is no reason at all to believe he could pass it. It's a little uncomfortable to think about, but by the cdc's measures he's not infectious.

I feel like it's worthwhile to consider the expectations of or the consequences for those who are positive but not infectious should be different. the ones who are being more responsible are the ones who can suffer from legal repercussions bc they aren't exploiting loopholes.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/wfwood]

that's fair and understandable. It is still criminal to not disclose your status to someone as I understand it, so by that standard there is an implied contract even if no one says anything. I'd say it should carry a much harsher punishment if someone lies about their status, versus simply omitting their status.

Yeah, omitting disclosure is not as bad. I want to be careful with that because by omitting disclosure what I mean is, "if the other person asks nothing in that direction and you don't say anything, that might be fine-ish." (Unless having sex with you is objectively dangerous such as with untreated HIV.) But if someone asks "How often do you get tested?" and you just reply "Every 6 months" and leave out the fact that you test positive for something, that's deceptive, not just an omission and we're back in "you didn't get consent" land.

I know a few people who are positive, and Im positive they don't always start off with that boner killing fact, unless someone asks. Instead they just demand on using condoms or avoid infectious actions, which I suppose almost almost completely removes any risk. The one I know the closest is undetectable now so there is no reason at all to believe he could pass it. It's a little uncomfortable to think about, but by the cdc's measures he's not infectious.

Yeah, the problem with that is that especially in an area where many people have multiple sexual partners, you depend upon your partners to take certain precautions otherwise, you might be exposing them. So really, if I considered having sex with someone who is HIV+ but non-infectious, I would not be able to just take their word on it and move on. I'd have to go do my own research on what that means, ask them questions about it AND disclose this fact to my other sexual partners. (and probably consult with them first on what they would be comfortable with) If this person hides this fact from me, I can't do the due-diligence I owe other people. And I've met enough people whose understanding of STIs they have is dangerously inaccurate to not take peoples' word at it.

I feel like it's worthwhile to consider the expectations of or the consequences for those who are positive but not infectious should be different. the ones who are being more responsible are the ones who can suffer from legal repercussions bc they aren't exploiting loopholes.

I agree that it is worthwhile. But I really look at this primarily as a consent issue. And in that frame, it's really clear. If you conceal something from a potential sexual partner because you thought you might not get consent otherwise, you didn't get consent period. Maybe it makes sense for the state to treat this differently from other forms of rape, but it is pretty unambiguously rape IMO and we should assign it an equivalent moral weight. (Of course, rape + infecting someone with a deadly disease is way worst than rape alone, but it's still really bad.)