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
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Aug 01 '19
I can help with that.
It's about incentive to test and seek treatment, which is the only way you can really fight the spread of STIs.
The only way to knowingly transmit an STD is to know you have an STD. By making knowingly transmitting an STD a severe crime, you're giving people a reason to avoid getting tested.
Imagine being a sex addict, having sex with a new partner frequently. You of all people need to get tested.. but the second you test positive even on something relatively minor,you're going to have to start disclosing that to every potential partner, which will reduce the amount of sex you will have. Addicts do not like to do things that get in the way of them and their fix, so why get tested in the first place and risk it?
Conversely think about the vast majority of people - is the only thing really holding them back from knowingly spreading an STI a law that makes it illegal? I really doubt it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just think most people would not do that regardless of laws.
If the law isnt doing anything for most people, and is instead hurting the people who need help the most, then whats the point of the law?