Should not disclosing your HIV status prior to sex be a crime?

>>8680072
its is a crime wtf. are you retarded?

>>8680072
>Should not disclosing your HIV status prior to sex be a crime?

imo it shouldn't be a crime, there is no risk involved if proper protection is used. We should strive to eliminate stigma. Same applies for people who dn't want to tell their birth gender to their partners. I'm a huge advocate for personal privacy and people having control over their own bodies.

>>8680092
fuck that, your privacy ends where my want to not be stuck taking meds for the rest of my life begins you fucking AIDS riddled fags.

>>8680092
stop sameposting OP. youre fucking dumb its not clever to reply with absurdities to your own topic. infecting people with HIV through deception is a crime

>>8680072
>imo it shouldn't be a crime, there is no risk involved if proper protection is used.

If the person had followed those guidelines in the first place, they wouldn't be poz. What makes you think that a once irresponsible person will now act responsible?

>>8680072
Yes pozfags blatantly lie about statistics and claim stuff like with treatment there's no chance of infection and whatever other bs they spout off about.
But the PARTNER study they spout off about saying it proves their point still said there's a 17.9% chance of catching HIV via bareback anal over a 10-year period in their upper confidence limit.
Also one thing they usually neglect to mention is that around 50-60% of HIV+ men on antiretrovirals DO NOT have an undetectable viral load because most people don't maintain proper medication schedules and miss medications all the time.

So don't believe the bullshit from pozfags, they just make shit up. It should definitely be illegal.

>>8680112
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV

it is illegal... wtf i hate this /pol/ false flagging

>>8680113
OP is asking if it should remain illegal, jesus do you even know english?
As of right now there's a huge push to make it legal by pozfags.

>>8680117
you just dont see the pattern
these posts are both the OP:
>>8680072
>>8680092
OP is trying to create false debate and will then inject subtle homophobia into it and try to make people angry and elicit butthurt responses from all sides to paint us all as insane.

also read the header, dipshit,
>"Should not disclosing your HIV status prior to sex be a crime?"
well, it ALREADY IS, so why are they asking if it "should be a crime," when it already is, poz fags wont get it legalized, and theres plenty of them who are victims of people who infected them, so they wouldnt be interested in the spread of such a disgusting disease. OP is either /pol/ or that one junkie who always gets super angry when called out for being a bug chaser

>>8680072
It should stay a crime, yes.

>>8680123
>poz fags wont get it legalized
lolwat they already have in many places. It's legal in California to spread HIV.

>>8680123
Holy fuck you are paranoid. This is my second post in the thread. We really need unique IDs per thread.

>>8680129
sauce?

>>8680131
I guess it's still in the process
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article137990898.html

But they're slowly getting there. I guess it's good for California though given that Gilead Sciences main headquarters are there. If there's an HIV boom there their economy will significantly benefit.

>>8680072
>>8680077
LGBT rights organizations sayno, if it's suppressed and less likely to be passed on, you don't need to inform your partner. US courts agree.

https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/rhoades-v-iowa

>>8680117
>"Should not disclosing your HIV status prior to sex be a crime?"
Reading comprehension is your problem. You're wrong. It is a crime, and OP a poz trying to start shit.

>>8680129
It's now a misdemeanor. It is still illegal. If the victim dies, you will get charged with manslaughter, regardless. I don't agree with it: they should've made the law that if you can't prove you took preventative steps and didn't tell someone you had HIV, you should be charged with a felony if you infected the other person. Yeah, there's a lot of "responsible" HIV positive people, but there's still that segment of the population that doesn't take their medicine and prefers to deceive. All of those people need to be in prison.

>>8680137
We had the early trials of PrEP, so a lot of people use it in this state. The damage HIV might cause is way more limited, and there probably won't be a spike in cases. Nevertheless, bug chasers and the like are absolutely fucking disgusting. There's a big difference between people having reckless sex and people who are literally trying to murder others with HIV.

>>8680160
OP is neg.

It is still a felony.

>>8680155
What about people who intentionally want to avoid suppressing their HIV? What about that small population of fatalist, fetishist bastards who intentionally try to infect people with their "gift?"

>>8680169
Well what is the actual compliance rate of HIV + people? I bet it is pretty low for bisexual men and transgender women of color.

>>8680163
How do you know OP is neg? They're trying to say the laws should change by doubting them in the primary,
>Should not disclosing your HIV status prior to sex be a crime?
Yes, it should be, especially when it results in spread of HIV.

>>8680178
I am OP.

>>8680177
I doubt that. Since transgender women of color end up prostituting, and getting tested for HIV is part of getting picked up by cops for soliciting. You want to take those meds or face felony charges: they follow up on people you interacted with and will charge you further counts for infecting people through deception. It's one reason why they wanted to reduce the felony charge in California, to ease the burden on minority women, and by extension transwomen.

>>8680181
Well, then you're a liar. Go ahead and take the thread to your next direction, which will be blaming
> bisexual men and transgender women of color.
This thread was bait from the beginning.

>>8680169
I expect Lambda Legal will get to them next. One step at a time.

>>8680186
What about actual compliance rates though? I doubt prostitutes are in general going to be that great at taking their medication. Also for bisexual men, most are married to women so they probably don't want to have HIV medication around.


>>8680190
Well I was thinking of two groups likely to have lower compliance rates for taking HIV medications. I'm not sure why you are so upset.

>>8680196
I hope so. I hope they advocate for the victims and get a comprehensive superior court ruling that makes it a life sentence to knowingly infect others and increase infectivity by not taking medicines to suppress HIV. They ought to make it a mandate to take PrEP for people having multiple sexual partners. It should be a situation where the bug chasers feel defeated because their infection rates get incredibly low, and then if they rarely succeed, they get imprisoned for life.

>>8680203
>Also for bisexual men, most are married to women so they probably don't want to have HIV medication around.
I can agree to this in theory, but there's no data on it, however:
>I doubt prostitutes are in general going to be that great at taking their medication.
The worse group is actually ciswomen of color, but alright, believe what you want by targeting transwomen directly. There's simply more arrests and charges, and that's the only data we have; more ciswomen are in jail on felony charges of prostituting while having HIV. We don't have accurate survey data of compliance on any of the groups we are talking about.

>>8680224
I just feel like trans are in general vulnerable in terms of their living situation and maybe not as likely stable financially to be taking medication regularly.

We definitely need better data on medication compliance before changing any laws.

Are there any places where the penalties have been softened up from felony level?

>>8680212
>I hope they advocate for the victims
After their behavior so far?

>>8680203
but theres so few bisexual men who have sex with men or so few transgender women prostituting they are not overwhelmingly burdening the total spread of hiv as much as gay men and straight people so why bring it up just seems like a complete red herring

>>8680237
Wait what? You are claiming most bisexual men don't actually have sex with men?

I am talking about compliance rates for HAART not as much percentage of who spreads what.

CDC has that info, I believe.

>>8680234
I don't know the intricacies of every state's policies, but the current is on the way to reducing charges because scientifically, the majority of HIV+ patients have access to medicines and HIV- people have PrEP. Most of the changes are focused on people who are conducting themselves safely, and it's mostly to reduce stigma and not to repeal punishment for people who are willingly and with prejudice trying to infect others.

>>8680235
The Rhoades case could easily translate into more aggressive and questionable cases. All it takes is one person acting as if their situation is like Rhoades, though they purposely infected someone. Rhoades literally did nothing wrong; there are plenty of people out there that have utilized major civil rights legal support for their own advantages.

>>8680072
if things keep going the way they are, being straight is about to become an official hatecrime someday.

>>8680293
So for Rhoades, was he asked if he was positive? I've always asked my partners before sex, I mean of course they can lie but they are asked. Also most dating websites have a category for HIV status and I never would sleep without someone who didn't have it filled in as negative. Did that apply there? Clearly they met for a hookup. I would be terrified if I knew I had had sex with someone who was + and didn't tell me. I mean of course I would ask so this would mean lying, but why is it too much to ask to have to disclose your status to a potential sexual partner? Even if you are on meds that, to me, is setting a dangerous precedent saying you don't have to tell people about potential diseases you have as long as YOU think you cannot transmit them.

>>8680072
Intentionally giving someone an incurable disease is no different than intentionally crippling someone for life. You have limited their ability to live a normal and healthy life, you gave them a condition that will cause chronic physical and emotional pain, and if they live in a country like the US they know have incredibly expensive medical bills they will have to struggle to pay for the rest of their. Doing this to someone just because you wanted to get laid is horrible and should absolutely be illegal to infect someone without their consent.

>>8680248
no, when you compare the populations, bisexual men who have sex with men are a minuscule amount of people and it becomes smaller when you only survey bisexual men who are openly bisexual and have male partners. why do they matter, though? what relevance does it have? what do trannies have to do with this? the majority of hiv cases are gay or straight people so shouldnt you be more worried about their compliance rates
also provide some of the numbers, because its impossible to judge compliance for "bisexuals" who arent openly or admittedly bisexual. you cant even get a statistic from that, because it will always be skewed to a smaller size because "men who have sex with men" who are bisexuals arent visible. they would be counted among straight males with hiv
go ahead and provide the data. im not arguing the data at this point, just the nature of the visibility of the surveyed groups

>>8680328
Does asking make a difference? If we eat dinner I don't have to ask if you've poisoned my food, you're still a murderer even if I didn't ask and there was no lie.

>>8680350
I still view disclosure as a responsibility, I am just asking if anyone knows the particulars of that case.

>>8680328
He had a legal obligation to state his status, but he didn't. If he had, there probably wouldn't have been a case against him. They appealed the judgment when he plead guilty, because he wore a condom and was on his meds: the person he had sex with did not contract HIV, so he didn't harm the "victim." See the equivalency: the victim wasn't harmed, but Rhoades in pleading guilty before his appeal was sentenced to 25 years and registered as a sex offender. It was considered that Rhoades had plead guilty but didn't receive proper representation and legal counsel. He eventually had his conviction overturned after 6 years.

>>8680364
I get that but I am wondering about the specifics in terms of if the other person asked, or if his dating profile that he used to meet the other man contained a category for HIV status that he had filled out or not.

>>8680350
>>8680359
You have to, in most states, disclose regardless of whether someone asks you. Asking only makes a difference, for the worse, if you lie about your status.

>>8680370
I believe the "victim" didn't ask him. They met in public and had a hookup. The "victim" found out afterwards from a friend that Rhoades was HIV+.

>>8680371
>in most states
Not Iowa.

>>8680371
Is there a map of state law on this matter?

>>8680378
In public based on an online dating profile or just random cottaging-type sex?

>>8680379
Iowa changed their laws in response to Rhoades' case, I believe.

>>8680380
Random sex.

Here's the map with state by state laws/ordinances listed out and linked below the map:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/index.html

>>8680382
Then Lambda didn't even win the "right" not to disclose for poz gays, they only managed to get one off!

>>8680395
The Obama admin made it federal policy to reduce the charges due to the scientific evidence and because of Rhoades decision. So while it's not completely settled, it will probably become more common. Not every state has changed, but it's happening as we speak.

>>8680402
Where has it changed from a disclosure requirement to none or a felony to a misdemeanor? I'd imagine not only straight people but gay people would be pretty upset about that change as well.

>>8680072

Its pretty much an attempted murder charge if you fail to disclose in my state. I fully support it too. I personally think the penalty should be worse.

>>8680155
IS THAT SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING THAT IT MIGHT SUPERFICIALLY PURPORT TO MEAN?

Devious special interest groups have long had the habbit of taking over groups that are meant to be representing the concerns of particular groups of common people and derailing their objectives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJURmeW2M04

>>8680072
No.

However, intentionally exposing someone to HIV should be a crime.

>>8680109
what is poz?

>>8682040
Having sex with them without disclosing is exposing them. No method is 100% safe, even if you're on meds and undetectable and using a condom. All it does is lower the chances of spreading it.

File: the so-called LGBT community.png (49KB, 636x337px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 636x337px

>>8680155
>>8682010

>>8684621
Doesn't change the fact that "LGBT organizations" in principle have a mandate to advocate for things relating to the security and well being of people with sexual irregularities, be those dimorphic bodily elements controlling sexual function or sexual identity.

Like it or not, this board is still here. And it's not going to be split up or hacked down.

The only alternative would be to bring them closer to /jp/. Turn them into /lgbsaneth/ and /thairan/ - queers, sanfrancisco and netherlands on the one hand, and trans, thaliand and that place we're so frustratted about bombing.

>>8684621
Or /lgbpride/ - faggotry and parades, and /tr/ transreality - as if we don't have enough vidya groups.

File: 1452651006817.gif (87KB, 280x297px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 280x297px

It's a danger to public health. So yes, it is a crime.

>>8684958
Doesn't work like that retard.

>>8680092
>Same applies for people who dn't want to tell their birth gender
Trannyism isn't contagious.

>>8680112
Does the HIV+ guy look healthy or like he's been doing drugs? People who miss pills, you can tell.

No. I'm glad those whores got hiv. That's what you get for being a coalburning whore. Hopefully evebryone treats them like the pariahs they are