RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 12:36:32 PM)
See, I know that you're capable of having a rational, intelligent conversation without throwing unnecessary insults. I've seen it here a time or two, at least until the muffin/catlady dude comes around and provokes you, then all bets are off. You're also capable of ignoring, or not responding to a post you don't want to deal with. So why be so hateful about a minor tangent, inspired by your minor tangent? What does that gain you? You're deflecting because you don't understand the facts of the situation, and don't care to research.

Drakvampire -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 1:44:58 PM)
look at them

Drakvampire -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 1:47:37 PM)
Who is rationale? Take your head meds like “stef” says

DesideriScuri -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 7:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Now, Greta, back to the law & punishments. I believe that if there is an actual sex crime involved, be it rape, sexual abuse of a minor, forced sodomy, etc, and the assailant is HIV positive (whether they know or not), then attempted murder should be added to any other charges. Or a new crime defined entirely. But for consensual sex, unfortunately, it takes two to tango. If full disclosure isn't given, is it still, really, consensual? Can you consent to sex with an HIV+ partner if that partner hasn't disclosed HIV+ status?

Drakvampire -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 7:59:49 PM)
Choices are? 1. Burn it 2 Save it 3. Annex it

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What I support: Personal Responsibility Does that not apply to one's sexual health? Is there no information about HIV/AIDS available? Is there no pill that can reduce the risk of infection? Do condoms not exist? Is it OK to be completely ignorant, and expect everyone else to be punished for your stupidity?

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:09:58 PM)
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If full disclosure isn't given, is it still, really, consensual? Can you consent to sex with an HIV+ partner if that partner hasn't disclosed HIV+ status? Exactly, infecting me with a life time disease with no cure that I cannot afford to treat and have, is a death sentence to me. My consensuality is based on the knowledge that he has no HIV. It is infact murder. This is no difference from somebody trying to poison me by spiking my drink. It seriously is not my responsibility when someone offers me a drink to make sure it has no poison inside it. The person who poison my drink is responsible.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:19:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV everyone else to be punished for your stupidity? I don't understand why you are defending lying people who wants to infect others with their incurable diseases intentionally? I am sorry to say this. But if this is mentality of a typical gay person. This is why HIV incidence is the absolute highest in the gay community. This is because they feel it is okay and the right thing to do NOT TO bother to inform their partners of their HIV and happily spread it around keeping their partners ignorant of their conditions. This is how it happens. I get it now. So if gay people feels that it's not their responsibility to inform others they have HIV before donating blood or engaging in sex. THEN WHY should blood donation clinics even accept them if their modus operandi is dishonesty? Just creating more work and more hassle for them over blood they cannot even use.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV everyone else to be punished for your stupidity? I don't understand why you are defending lying people who wants to infect others with their incurable diseases intentionally? I am sorry to say this. But if this is mentality of a typical gay person. This is why HIV incidence is the absolute highest in the gay community. This is because they feel it is okay not to inform their partners of their HIV and happily spread it. Because to him it is somehow anti-gay discrimination, even though it has long since ceased to be that, he is stuck in the past. He's also pretty much a moron.

DesideriScuri -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:21:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What I support: Personal Responsibility Does that not apply to one's sexual health? Is there no information about HIV/AIDS available? Is there no pill that can reduce the risk of infection? Do condoms not exist? Is it OK to be completely ignorant, and expect everyone else to be punished for your stupidity? How is it that everyone else is being punished? I seem to recall someone on here mention that condoms can break.... Do you know the HIV status of your partner(s)? What if one lied?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:23:24 PM)
Ignore him DS, he is clearly a fucking bumblefuck.

DesideriScuri -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:26:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If full disclosure isn't given, is it still, really, consensual? Can you consent to sex with an HIV+ partner if that partner hasn't disclosed HIV+ status? Exactly, infecting me with a life time disease with no cure that I cannot afford to treat and have, is a death sentence to me. My consensuality is based on the knowledge that he has no HIV. It is infact murder. This is no difference from somebody trying to poison me by spiking my drink. It seriously is not my responsibility when someone offers me a drink to make sure it has no poison inside it. The person who poison my drink is responsible. First of all, it's been clearly shown that it's NOT a death sentence. Second, consent is not based on the knowledge that he/she is not HIV+. Consent is having all the information before making the decision to engage in sexual activity. If you know your partner is HIV+ and you choose to engage in sex, that's consensual sex. IF you don't know your partner is HIV+ (because he/she lied about being HIV+), then it's not really consensual sex.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I seem to recall someone on here mention that condoms can break.... Exactly too, I definitely had condoms broke on me before! And fortunately for pregnancy, I just go straight and get a morning after pill. Also, I can just pop excessive birth control pills. Like 6 pills in one go to be super safe! To prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, I can't do that with HIV. Plus IF this person does not inform me he has HIV, even if the condom broke, all I can do is take Morning After Pill. I wouldn't freaking know that I was expose to HIV to attempt to rescue myself!

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri First of all, it's been clearly shown that it's NOT a death sentence. It is totally a death sentence without medication. Notice I clearly said, I CANNOT afford medication. HIV pills are like 10k per month for HIV sufferers here. I don't even earn that much money! And health insurance do not cover HIV spread by sex. They cover it if it's from blood donation. quote: Second, consent is not based on the knowledge that he/she is not HIV+. My consent is based on the person not having HIV. IF he had HIV, I am definitely not gonna have sex with him. Just like if he has flu. I will not have sex with him. IF he had hand foot and mouth disease. I will not have sex with him. If he has Zika. I will not have sex with him!

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:07:08 PM)
As I said a page or two ago, you're all ignoring the actual reasons for the change in this, and many other California criminal laws. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in California prisons violated the 8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Brown v Plata 2011 In recent years, voters have also approved ballot measures to help further reduce overcrowding. So California legislators are having to update many laws, and adjusting sentences, as a more long-term solution to prison overcrowding.

LadyPact -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:09:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Does that not apply to one's sexual health? Is there no information about HIV/AIDS available? Is there no pill that can reduce the risk of infection? Do condoms not exist? Is it OK to be completely ignorant, and expect everyone else to be punished for your stupidity? I can't say that I agree with you, JVoV. Especially among kinky people, our standard shouldn't be the lower bar of consent. It should be the higher standard of informed consent. The parallel would be 'some people have HIV, so safer sex practices are advisable,' as opposed to 'person knowing they have HIV and not disclosing that fact, depriving the other person the informed choice whether to engage with them or not.' The person who knowingly has HIV, and does not tell the potential partner, has increased that person's risk factor. It is specifically information hidden from the other person. I don't know what your tastes in BDSM are, but if you are a top negotiating with a bottom about play, do you think you should have a reasonable expectation for the bottom to inform you of any conditions that you should be aware of prior to engaging? If the other person knows they have a blood born pathogen, do you feel you have the right to know?

Danemora -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:30:38 PM)
~FRing it~ Greta, I hope you truly understand how HIV testing works. You should know that if your potential sexual partner had unprotected sex the night before with an HIV infected person and then strolls in the morning after with you to get an HIV test, he will test negative until he sero-converts if he was exposed to HIV and begins producing the antibodies testing picks up. Current testing is based on presence of antibodies, which are only present in sufficient numbers to test positive AFTER he's seroconverted. By then, its a done deal. If you'd been fucking him without a condom because his initial test was NEGATIVE...you were exposed to HIV all along. I spent over 4 years in HIV testing/counseling and have seen people end up HIV+ under this exact scenario. And overdosing on hormonal birth control pills as a means of pregnancy prevention increases your risk of DVT development that can cause you to drop dead of a pulmonary embolism if/when they break loose and hit your lungs...and you are subjecting yourself to increased cancer risk. And just FYI, I had an asymptomatic DVT turn PE that nearly killed me in 2010. It can happen. Though I cant say I was ever stupid enough to pop birth control pills like candy though. I pray no one else takes their medical advice based on your foolishness. Because quite honestly, its like F- level bullshit

Drakvampire -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:39:18 PM)
Was too deep for me too what do you think he meant?

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Danemora ~FRing it~ Greta, I hope you truly understand how HIV testing works. You should know that if your potential sexual partner had unprotected sex the night before with an HIV infected person and then strolls in the morning after with you to get an HIV test, he will test negative Why are people bringing points that is completely irrelevant to the topic? The topic is about people who HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED POSITIVE with HIV! And then INTENTIONALLY WITHHOLD THAT INFO from you, because they want to have sex with you or for some stupid reason, they STILL WANT to Donate their blood! So they refuse to inform anybody they have HIV. This LAW does not punish ANYBODY who is UNAWARE they have HIV. So ANYBODY who is unaware that they have HIV is not part the conversation. Get it? I have repeated this UPTEEN Times, and it seems like nobody understand the word, "KNOWINGLY". That MEANS you ACTUALLY NEED to KNOW you HAVE HIV and then INTENTIONALLY spread it to OTHERS non-consensually. Not only do people equate "illegal immigrants" to "ALL legal Immigrants". People also equate "knowingly" with "unknowingly" This is like what is PRECISELY wrong with the left right now! Even the folks who were responsible for reducing this penalties, which is a leftie administration, probably think that "non consensual" is the same thing as "consensual". I would say, they are supporting rape!

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875