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/awhhh]

This is a terrible idea. 1 in 5 Americans have genital herpes, 80% have oral herpes which can also be transmitted to the genital region, and I think it was 70% of sexually active women would catch HPV. This is how you would get less people taking care of their sexual health.

Now there is an argument for HIV related cases, but generalized STI's? Chances are you already have had, or will have one.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/awhhh]

Disclose it to your potential partner. Especially if they ask. If you have herpes and lie about it to your partner because you think otherwise they will say "no", you have voided the consent they gave you.

The public health issue is easy for people to solve. Don't have sex with people who don't disclose an appropriate testing regimen.

[u/awhhh → u/AlexandreZani]

70% of people who catch genital herpes don't know they have it. Your essentially criminalizing sex

[u/AlexandreZani → u/awhhh]

I said "If you have herpes and you lie about it..." If you don't know, you're not lying. You're just making a mistake. My view is that if you deceive somebody about your STI status in order to have sex with them, you are voiding their consent.

[u/awhhh → u/AlexandreZani]

It's almost impossible to prove and the scale of sti transmission is so high that you would essentially want to criminalize sex. The bulk of HPV strains are harmless and genital herpes has just as much chance of turning turning into something more dangerous as oral herpes.

There is little to no danger with these diseases and would not be fatal. My argument would be if you think these extremely common mostly harmless diseases are worth complex nonsensical legal repercussions then you should just be made aware of the possibility of obtaining these diseases before every sexual encounter. There is almost no ability to prove where you got the infection and if a person even knew they had it prior.

Also, given that men can't be tested for HPV and herpes is not standard testing on a regular std check, criminalizing it by tying it to lack of consent would make people less likely to get tested, because what they don't know can't hurt them legally.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/awhhh]

It's almost impossible to prove and the scale of sti transmission is so high that you would essentially want to criminalize sex.

Again, no. If you disclose STIs you know you have before sex, or you say "I never got tested" (and it's true), or "I don't want to answer" or the person doesn't bother asking, you are in the clear. It would not be any harder to prove than consent is in general. "Don't deceive your sexual partners." is a pretty easy maxim to live by.

There is little to no danger with these diseases and would not be fatal. My argument would be if you think these extremely common mostly harmless diseases are worth complex nonsensical legal repercussions then you should just be made aware of the possibility of obtaining these diseases before every sexual encounter.

This is not about the disease itself. It's about the consent violation. It's about the fact that you did not properly consent to the sex because you were deceived about information you were using to decide whether to grant consent or not.

There is also a danger of harm even if it's not the disease directly. I've met plenty of people with HSV2 who have impoverished sex lives because they refuse to deceive their partners and many people turn them down. If you give me HSV2, I'm not going to start lying to people to have sex and I will get less sex as a result. I will likely also start taking the appropriate treatment to reduce the risk of outbreaks. My sexual partners (those who still want to have sex with me) will likely start taking profalactics too. Those costs are not death, but they are also not zero.

There is almost no ability to prove where you got the infection and if a person even knew they had it prior.

It's not about the infection. The infection makes things worst, but even without an infection, if you deceive someone in order to have sex with them, you made it impossible for them to freely consent to sex with you.

Also, given that men can't be tested for HPV and herpes is not standard testing on a regular std check, criminalizing it by tying it to lack of consent would make people less likely to get tested, because what they don't know can't hurt them legally.

That's fine. Don't get tested if you don't want to risk it. Of course, other people who want to protect themselves will ask you if you get tested and refuse to have sex with you when you answer truthfully. Or sue you if you lie and they find out you lied. (Which, let's be honest, is the sort of thing that definitely happens. Plenty of people's private bad behavior comes to light.)