|
|
 
Rank: Alpha Blonde
Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 4,370
Location: In your dirty fantasies
|
Some consider that the intentional or reckless infection of a person with HIV should be considered a crime. People who do so can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Do you think this kind of prosecution is fair? Is it the fault of the person transmitting the virus or should it be assumed that human beings have autonomy over their own health, and if they choose to engage in consensual but unprotected sex, that there is implicit consent to any medical risks arising from failure to use a condom? If this leads to a criminal arrest, and includes highly publicized trials, does this potentially deter people from getting tested regularly in order to avoid knowledge of their potential positive status, therefore creating more potential for reckless transmissions? What about sexually transmitted infections that are non-lethal like herpes or gonorrhea? Should one be able to sue a partner for transmitting the infection if they knew about it but chose not to tell a new partner? Discuss...
 The complete 50,000+ word novel, inspired by the original short story, is now available for instant download on Amazon.com *Forum Announcement and More Dirty Details* *** Click here to read my NEW Hardcore rough sex story. Now a Lush Editor's Pick selection! ***
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 3,232
Location: California
|
I think It should be a crime if its deliberate. I don't think its any different than poisoning someone.
|
|
Rank: Constant Gardener
Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 9,516
Location: Cakeland, United States
|
If you've been diagnosed and you're aware that you have an STD of any kind, yet you engage in sexual contact with another person and do not inform the other person that... a) I have HIV b) I have genital warts c) I have syphilis d) I have genital herpes e) I have AIDS f) I have gonorrhea g) I have thunderbolt throwing flying monkeys out my ass, etc... You are liable for maliciously spreading toxic waste and should be prosecutable. Whether you are wearing a condom or not should not even matter. Whether you are 'in treatment' for whatever is crawling out of your sexual orifices, should not matter. 'course that's just my opinion.
 The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,264
Location: State of Confusion
|
It is definitely a crime to intentionally give someone an STD, especially one that can kill you.
I do, however, disagree with WMM that it shouldn't even matter if someone is wearing a condom. Since condoms are supposed to be over 99% effective, I believe it would be reasonable to assume that the infected person did not intentionally intend to hurt the other person. That being said, I'd personally still want to know if a potential sex partner had an STD and I'd still turn them down, even with a condom.
|
|
Rank: Constant Gardener
Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 9,516
Location: Cakeland, United States
|
I believe that condoms were originally marketed as a way to prevent conception and not as a way to prevent the spread of STDs. I might well be wrong on this. But if they capture the sperm they prevent conception...if however your cock is plagued with open sores as is your pubis area, 15 condoms on top of one another are not going to prevent crabs, genital warts, genital herpes, etc... You're rubbing an infected retard. You might be drunk but he still knows he's infected.
The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,264
Location: State of Confusion
|
WellMadeMale wrote:I believe that condoms were originally marketed as a way to prevent conception and not as a way to prevent the spread of STDs. I might well be wrong on this. But if they capture the sperm they prevent conception...if however your cock is plagued with open sores as is your pubis area, 15 condoms on top of one another are not going to prevent crabs, genital warts, genital herpes, etc...
You're rubbing an infected retard.
You might be drunk but he still knows he's infected. I suddenly feel the need to take a shower.
|
|
Rank: Thread Mediator
Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,087
Location: United States
|
On the surface, I think most of the above are right, and that knowingly having unprotected sex with an STD should be a punishable crime.
Obviously it shouldn't be a crime if it was done unwittingly. But, how do you prove that the person who transmitted it knew they had it? And if the hammer gets laid down for passing STD's intentionally, will it backfire and cause less voluntary testing? I get tested a lot more than most do, for me it's peace of mind, but I also don't have to worry about getting sent to the pen if I mess up and pass something.
Since HIV is deadly, maybe it deserves the criminal designation, but any of the others? I think making it a crime is overboard. Now, if somebody files civil suit, then the STD-giver should have to defend himself in court. A loss of recreational sex for a lifetime because some idiot gave you Herpes is definitely worth some cash in my opinion, but making detectives and prosecutors mess with people my age passing chlamydia around? No, the world has bigger problems than this...ones that a cotton swab and some penicillin at the clinic can't clear up.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/24/2010
Posts: 1,759
Location: Down Under
|
If you have a STD you should tell the person you are about to have sex with so they know the risks they maybe taking if they proceed. The use of condoms can help in some cases but both parties have to know if one partner has a disease. For someone that knows they are HIV positive to undertake sexual contact without a condom should go to jail in my opinion.
"Hey, don't knock masturbation! It's sex with someone I love." Woody Allen
"I am willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong." Samuel Goldwyn
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,267
|
If you have a disease that can be transmitted through sex, or any other means of contact, and you do not inform the person(s) whom you could be infecting, than YES, it should be a crime.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 195
Location: the twilight zone
|
WellMadeMale wrote:I believe that condoms were originally marketed as a way to prevent conception and not as a way to prevent the spread of STDs. I might well be wrong on this. But if they capture the sperm they prevent conception...if however your cock is plagued with open sores as is your pubis area, 15 condoms on top of one another are not going to prevent crabs, genital warts, genital herpes, etc...
You're rubbing an infected retard.
You might be drunk but he still knows he's infected. Condoms were marketed as "Sold for the prevention of disease only," to avoid confiscation in states where birth control was illegal.  
"Happiness is doing it rotten your own way."Isaac Asimov (1994)
|
|
Rank: Constant Gardener
Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 9,516
Location: Cakeland, United States
|
standingbear wrote:WellMadeMale wrote:I believe that condoms were originally marketed as a way to prevent conception and not as a way to prevent the spread of STDs. I might well be wrong on this. But if they capture the sperm they prevent conception...if however your cock is plagued with open sores as is your pubis area, 15 condoms on top of one another are not going to prevent crabs, genital warts, genital herpes, etc...
You're rubbing an infected retard.
You might be drunk but he still knows he's infected. Condoms were marketed as "Sold for the prevention of disease only," to avoid confiscation in states where birth control was illegal. I stand corrected and taught better for your post/comment.
The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald
|
|
Rank: Advanced Wordsmith
Joined: 10/29/2010
Posts: 99
Location: Orlando
|
Yes, Definitely. Go to jail, do not pass go! I had a skin infection at 35 years old and it had been misdiagnosed by at least ten doctors. The doctors told me it is harmless, not to worry and just use a condom. I, being an extreme thinker, thought that was very risky (condoms break, etc.) and chose not to have sex or a relationship until I knew I was completely clean. This took 20 years as Doctors gave up and I had to do my own research and find the cure to the problem. The harmless infection was the now famous cervical cancer causing hpv. It was a lonely life and I was thought to be very weird by many women who tried to get close to me, but I also feel glad that I have not caused a woman to go through a terrible experience.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/6/2010
Posts: 805
Location: Right here
|
Yes, I think it should be a crime if a person knew that he or she could possibly infect a sexual partner with a life threatening disease. How someone that was a carrier of such a disease could not tell another (sexual partner) & be able to live with them self is beyond me. Due to my lifestyle in the late 60's & throughout the 70's I contracted Hepatitis C. probably in the early 70's. It was almost 30 years before I was diagnosed. During that period of time its possible that I could have infected someone Would have been purely unintentional because I did not know. This disease is passed only by blood to blood contact so I can only hope. Was told by my Doctor that it was highly unlikely that i passed the disease on to someone else, but not out of the realm of possibility. We would both have to be bleeding at the same time ect. I know that didn't happen. Still? Should a person go to jail for unknowingly?....
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,267
|
Intentionally? Yes. Depending on what disease and the long term/short term effects should determine the plausible punishment.
If you did not know you had any STD's? No.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 11/24/2010
Posts: 336
Location: whispering in your ear, United Kingdom
|
I think it should be a crime if the person is aware they have it int he first place.
i.e if someone knows they have HIV or Chlamydia or something and then has unprotected sex anyway. That's just gross man and soooo mean
|
|
Rank: Removalist
Joined: 11/17/2010
Posts: 946
Location: Mountains of , United States
|
It is your body. If you have sex and you're not tested on a regular basis, you are being wreckless. Blood panels specifically checking for STD's have been added to the protocol of our annual health exams. There are free clinics all over - not knowing is a real crime, as there is no good excuse for not knowing.
So you don't know that you have an STD. That is a crime - Improper Equipment.
So you have an STD and you purposely don't tell your partner. That is a crime - Entrapment.
So you have an STD and you purposely spread it. That is a crime - Distribution with intent, Yeilding a weapon of mass destruction...
How do you prove it? Medical records. They are already interlaced with insurance programs, tap into that system. You were diagnosed in September of 2009, its January of 2011...yea you did it on purpose!
People should be held accountable for their own actions. If there were some sort of criminal structure for it, it may cut down on the spread of diseases. However, I would like to point out that offenders should not be sent to jail but should be put on some sort of probationary program with community service...perhaps in one of those free clinics.
Education is power.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,267
|
It should be a crime especially if you haven't told the other person that you have the disease or if it was deliberate from the person with the disease. Even if it wasn't deadly, its something that shouldn't go unpunished. It makes the life harder on the person who didn't expect to get the disease.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 2/9/2009
Posts: 350
Location: Scotland
|
SweetPenny wrote:WellMadeMale wrote:I believe that condoms were originally marketed as a way to prevent conception and not as a way to prevent the spread of STDs. I might well be wrong on this. But if they capture the sperm they prevent conception...if however your cock is plagued with open sores as is your pubis area, 15 condoms on top of one another are not going to prevent crabs, genital warts, genital herpes, etc...
You're rubbing an infected retard.
You might be drunk but he still knows he's infected. I suddenly feel the need to take a shower. Sorry sweet i have to agree with WMM, he has a point, even if he goes a bit Frankie Boyle on us all 
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,267
|
My two pennies: In any tort claim, if the defendant had knowledge, constructive knowledge of a defect (in this case: disease that will cause you harm and personal injury) or something that is reasonably foreseeable is a matter which one can pursue a claim (lawsuit) against for personal injuries. So if he/she don't go to jail then sue them in civil court since the intent/beyond reasonable doubt issue is mooted. Not really gonna give you any solace knowing you have a contractible disease which you must now warn others about and will pay for in countless ways, but, it's a start.
I don't know if this topic was chosen due to the recent case where an acrobat "arguably" transmitted HIV to his partner, but if so, then yes. If one is in an actual relationship, and there is a network of friends, and some true relationship, whether ill-conceived or not, then one partner has the duty to tell the other. As for the one night stand, then, that is a different question. In a one night stand, I still believe that the carrier should let the other party know so that they have the choice whether or not they believe that a condom will actually prevent whatever malady the carrier has or not, or just run for the hills. Also, if you know that it is such an encounter you should practice safe sex anyways, and not cry foul due to your own lack of foresight. This then opens the arguable notion that even if you wear one you might catch something. To which, I must think more.
|
|
Rank: Alpha Blonde
Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 4,370
Location: In your dirty fantasies
|
Doctors and scientists in the UK are currently creating an electronic stick that can be put into your phone to test for STDs. Next time you're about to try a one-night stand, you might want to use your phone to get their number and test them for STDs at the same time. So efficient!  Phone App to Diagnose STDs wrote:A group of scientists in the U.K. is working on an affordable and easily accessible way to test if you are positive with a sexually transmitted disease.
According to The Guardian, the researchers are calling the project “electronic Self-Testing Instruments for STIs,” a mobile phone application that can tell you if you’ve got an STD. The device will be similar to a pregnancy testing kit and will work this way:
“People who suspect they have been infected will be able to put urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer and receive a diagnosis within minutes, telling them which, if any, sexually transmitted infection (STI) they have.”
The complete 50,000+ word novel, inspired by the original short story, is now available for instant download on Amazon.com *Forum Announcement and More Dirty Details**** Click here to read my NEW Hardcore rough sex story. Now a Lush Editor's Pick selection! ***
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 2,640
Location: Island of tranquility
|
I can see it now, drunken fools pissing on their phones.
On a more serious note, it seems that so many forget that herpes is transmissible when no symptoms are present. So many of us, who think we are being responsible when using condoms, are still putting ourselves at risk.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 7/19/2008
Posts: 101
Location: Pacific Ocean
|
I think it should be a crime.
Here's more food for thought: In the state of California, if a medical professional, police officer, fireman, etc. is stuck with a needle, they are tested for such things as HIV, Hep C / B etc. However if the patient does not want to ungo testing for these things, they do not have to, and you can not take a blood sample and test it for those things without their consent. If the medical professional gets HIV, Hep C etc from this patient they can not go back and sue them for it in any capacity. It is seen as a hazard of the job.
Apple
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,267
|
I actually thought it WAS a crime here in Aus to deliberately infect someone with the HIV virus, although I'm fairly sure that only applies when it comes to doing something messed up like making them drink your infected blood (take that Twi-hards!). Although with so many undiagnosed guys and gals out there, it almost makes me want to ask my dates for a blood test before we do the nasty.
I think the key point here, that everyone is making, is that STD's can ruin lives, relationships and usually the future of trhe infected individual. However, if you are informed and still let your genitals do the thinking.....well frankly stumpy you haven't got a leg to stand on.
XX
BB
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/31/2010
Posts: 137
|
I think to KNOWINGLY infect another with a disease should be a crime, yes. But the keyword is knowingly, because there are diseases which have no obvious symptoms and can go undetected for years. Which is why I think regular STD testing is every person's responsibility. Anyhoo, the crime bit. If you know you have the disease, and you don't take the precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk, and you don't inform your partner, that to me is the same as taking a knife and sticking them in the ribs.
Follow my blog! Latest post: Shake Your Bootie
|
|
Rank: Advanced Wordsmith
Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 81
Location: The Throne of the Under World
|
Unless I missed the train on this subject,(Which is very common) In the US it is indeed a crime to knowingly spread any STD with malicious intent
however I do not know the penalties of said crime.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 226
Location: at sea
|
As a matter of interst in a local Florida paper today, a women was arrested and charged with knowingly having unprotected sex with 2 men while HIV positive without telling them. Her bond was set at $10,000.
In the same paper, a man was arrested for having sex with a dog. His bond is $100,000.
One could conclude that animals are more important than people.
|
|
|
Guest |