British man jailed for 14 months for transmitting herpes [Archive]

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 13:18

Why shouldn't people be prosecuted for knowingly having sex with someone while carrying an STD, and not informing the other party before the act?

At best (that is to say, if the guy knew he was carrying herpes and just thought "fuck it" and went ahead anyway without telling her) it's like drunk driving. Drunk drivers may not deliberately set out to kill or injure people, but they are still punished when they get caught because they are exposing other people to unacceptable risk through their own negligent actions.

Deliberate infection of others with malice aforethought, on the other hand, is biological warfare on an uncomfortably personal scale, and should be treated with the utter contempt it deserves.

So i'm assuming you would apply the same logic to people who kiss their partners while knowing they have a cold sore or the flu? Should we prosecute such people as well, or are sexual conditions somehow more serious because of their sexual nature?

I'm new here, my first post. I just wanted to say that cold sores cannot cause genital herpes, they are two different viruses.

They can and they commonly do. Read the NHS link i posted.

issues are worse for women because of pregnancy and can lead to having a caesarian section in stead of normal labour if you have a breakout when you are giving birth because of the risks to the baby from herpes so maybe no so serious for some but certainly serious for others

According to the NHS, the risk to the baby is very low apart from in the less typical scenario where the woman catches herpes during the third trimester of her pregnancy, when antiviral medication and a caesarian section may be necessary.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Genital-herpes/Pages/Complications.aspx

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd September 2011, 13:32

So i'm assuming you would apply the same logic to people who kiss their partners while knowing they have a cold sore or the flu? Should we prosecute such people as well, or are sexual conditions somehow more serious because of their sexual nature?

Any deliberate transmission (or attempt thereof) of diseases to those who are unaware that one has a disease is completely unacceptable. What is so difficult to grasp about this concept?

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 13:44

Any deliberate transmission (or attempt thereof) of diseases to those who are unaware that one has a disease is completely unacceptable. What is so difficult to grasp about this concept?

You didn't say "deliberate" in your first post. You said people should be "prosecuted for knowingly having sex with someone while carrying an STD, and not informing the other party before the act".

If the same standard were to apply to every minor medical condition out there (and most STDs are minor or curable), i think you would need to build a lot more courtrooms and prisons.

brigadista

3rd September 2011, 14:04

So i'm assuming you would apply the same logic to people who kiss their partners while knowing they have a cold sore or the flu? Should we prosecute such people as well, or are sexual conditions somehow more serious because of their sexual nature?

They can and they commonly do. Read the NHS link i posted.

According to the NHS, the risk to the baby is very low apart from in the less typical scenario where the woman catches herpes during the third trimester of her pregnancy, when antiviral medication and a caesarian section may be necessary.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Genital-herpes/Pages/Complications.aspx

caesarian section is a major operation

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 14:09

caesarian section is a major operation

I'm aware of what it is.

piet11111

3rd September 2011, 14:46

"prosecuted for knowingly having sex with someone while carrying an STD, and not informing the other party before the act".

That sounds very deliberate to me.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd September 2011, 14:59

You didn't say "deliberate" in your first post. You said people should be "prosecuted for knowingly having sex with someone while carrying an STD, and not informing the other party before the act".

So you don't think that someone with an STD (and who knows they have it) who has sex with someone who is unaware of the presence of the infection, is guilty of criminal negligence?

If the same standard were to apply to every minor medical condition out there (and most STDs are minor or curable), i think you would need to build a lot more courtrooms and prisons.

Do you seriously believe that any reasonable person, upon discovering they have an STD (however minor), would then proceed to have sex with someone else (risking transmission of the illness to the partner) without first telling them?

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 15:34

So you don't think that someone with an STD (and who knows they have it) who has sex with someone who is unaware of the presence of the infection, is guilty of criminal negligence?

Do you think that someone with a cold sore or the flu (and who knows they have it) who kisses someone who is unaware of the presence of the infection, is guilty of criminal negligence?

You continue not to address this flaw in your logic.

For example: an old lady knows that she has the flu, gives it to her elderly husband with a hug and a kiss in the morning, the poor man gets seriously ill and develops pneumonia -- the woman is guilty of criminal negligence, is she?

Do you seriously believe that any reasonable person, upon discovering they have an STD (however minor), would then proceed to have sex with someone else (risking transmission of the illness to the partner) without first telling them?

Whether it is 'reasonable' or not, it is something which probably is done on a weekendly basis throughout the country, by both males and females. Yes, in an ideal world people would not have unprotected sex with a partner when they have an STD, just like they would not cough in someone's direction when they have a cold or the flu. But do i think that such conduct is a matter for the courts and the police to address, and that it should be criminalised? No.

Bostana

3rd September 2011, 15:43

Well, if he knowingly gave herpes to his girlfriend then that should be punishable by the legal system.

However, if he didn't know then it would be questionable.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 15:59

For example: an old lady knows that she has the flu, gives it to her elderly husband with a hug and a kiss in the morning, the poor man gets seriously ill and develops pneumonia -- the woman is guilty of criminal negligence, is she?

let us compare how easy it is to spread the flu compared to genital herpes. not to mention the flu in western societies is pretty well contained, while herpes is an incurable disease that stays with you for life.

Nox

3rd September 2011, 16:06

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 16:07

let us compare how easy it is to spread the flu compared to genital herpes.

Herpes is very easy to transmit through skin-to-skin contact, which is why about 80 per cent of the UK population has it.

not to mention the flu in western societies is pretty well contained, while herpes is an incurable disease that stays with you for life.

The winter flu kills 4,000 people a year in the UK. Genital herpes kills virtually no one, and in the vast majority of cases it is a mild skin condition which just happens to be 'down there' -- hence the moral indignation you see even on a leftwing website.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 16:16

Herpes is very easy to transmit through skin-to-skin contact, which is why about 80 per cent of the UK population has it.

HSV-1. Cold sores. The rate of genital herpes (HSV-2) is about 20%.

You're either stupid for making that mistake or stupid for thinking that no one would catch you on that brazen display of intellectual dishonesty. Cut it out.

The flu kills 4,000 people a year in the UK. Genital herpes kills virtually no one, and in the vast majority of cases it is a mild skin condition which just happens to be 'down there' -- hence the moral indignation you see even on a leftwing website.

Here's the difference. You get the flu by using doorknobs and being too close to someone on a bus. You get HSV-2 by fucking someone with it.

But yeah, you're right, it affecting "down there" is what it's about. STDs in general are epidemic and can have devastating effects on people.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the indignation here is over the permanence of the disease.

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 16:33

HSV-1. Cold sores. The rate of genital herpes (HSV-2) is about 20%.

You're either stupid for making that mistake or stupid for thinking that no one would catch you on that brazen display of intellectual dishonesty. Cut it out.

You should take special care to get your facts right before venturing out and calling someone stupid.

"Genital herpes is caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 1 or type 2."
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Genital-herpes/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Either type can cause genital herpes.

Now i presume you will quietly exit the thread...

But yeah, you're right, it affecting "down there" is what it's about. STDs in general are epidemic and can have devastating effects on people.

From a medical standpoint, genital herpes does not have "devastating effects" -- it is usually mild, at least after the initial occurance.

Any "devastating effects" are emotional and irrational, the result of decades of media and government sensationalism and fear-mongering.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the indignation here is over the permanence of the disease.

"Permanent" does mean serious. And as the NHS website explains, the severity of outbreaks diminishes over time.

Cold sores are also "permanent", yet we do not seem to hear a lot about them in the papers. While sex is portrayed as being dirty and borderline criminal...

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd September 2011, 16:40

Do you think that someone with a cold sore or the flu (and who knows they have it) who kisses someone who is unaware of the presence of the infection, is guilty of criminal negligence?

You continue not to address this flaw in your logic.

What flaw? Giving someone else a disease is fucking antisocial, whether it's the flu or the thrice-damned Black fucking Death. This applies whether one deliberately sets out to infect others or whether one just doesn't give a shit if one does.

Whether it is 'reasonable' or not, it is something which probably is done on a weekendly basis throughout the country, by both males and females. Yes, in an ideal world people would not have unprotected sex with a partner when they have an STD, just like they would not cough in someone's direction when they have a cold or the flu. But do i think that such conduct is a matter for the courts and the police to address, and that it should be criminalised? No.

I'm talking about the deliberate and/or negligent infections of others with diseases one is aware of carrying.

I seriously have to wonder why you picked this of all issues. For fuck's sake, the guy admitted his guilt. But then again, maybe the evil liberal sex-hating FemiNazi brigade forced a confession out of that poor oppressed white male.

Vanguard1917

3rd September 2011, 16:52

What flaw? Giving someone else a disease is fucking antisocial, whether it's the flu or the thrice-damned Black fucking Death. This applies whether one deliberately sets out to infect others or whether one just doesn't give a shit if one does.

Okay, thanks for your honesty. In your society, we would bang up the old woman in my previous example.

I seriously have to wonder why you picked this of all issues. For fuck's sake, the guy admitted his guilt. But then again, maybe the evil liberal sex-hating FemiNazi brigade forced a confession out of that poor oppressed white male.

It's got nothing to do with his sex. The courts will use this as a precedent to punish women as well.

Also, you're wrong to assume that yours is somehow a feminist or progressive standpoint. For example, a feminist would oppose sex workers being imprisoned for being 'purveyors of disease'.

Also, sexual-health charities condemned the verdict of the court.

And, yes, the man was wrong to plead guilty, but being pressurised to admit guilt is hardly a new phenomenon.

Zealot

3rd September 2011, 16:55

I can't believe that there are STD-spreading apologists on here. And comparing it to the flu? Fucking amazing.

PhoenixAsh

3rd September 2011, 17:26

Okay, thanks for your honesty. In your society, we would bang up the old woman in my previous example.

No...in fact. Since it depends on if the husband files charges. Like the woman did in this case.

You are subtilly changing the facts to suit your argument.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd September 2011, 17:28

Okay, thanks for your honesty. In your society, we would bang up the old woman in my previous example.

I see the concept of "the punishment fitting the crime" is an alien one to you. STDs require intimate physical contact - the flu is airborne, and can be spread simply by breathing. The prosecution would have to rule out both aerial and surface vectors of transmission, which considering that the flu spreads by coughing and sneezing would be impossible, since the old woman could have coughed/sneezed when the spouse was not even in the room, and he could have subsequently picked it up from the air or from a surface after the event.

It's got nothing to do with his sex. The courts will use this as a precedent to punish women as well.

Also, you're wrong to assume that yours is somehow a feminist or progressive standpoint. For example, a feminist would oppose sex workers being imprisoned for being 'purveyors of disease'.

Sex workers are actually very conscious of things like STDs, as it is directly relevant to their livelihood. A sex worker that has an STD but still has intimate physical contact with johns regardless is equivalent to a truck driver doing their work while tanked.

Also, sexual-health charities condemned the verdict of the court.

Since when are bourgeois charities the final arbiters of right and wrong?

And, yes, the man was wrong to plead guilty, but being pressurised to admit guilt is hardly a new phenomenon.

Had the transmission been a genuine accident, what was stopping him from pleading "not guilty"? The burden of proof rests on the prosecution as I recall, and they would need more than her word against his to successfully reach a guilty verdict.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 17:36

Now i presume you will quietly exit the thread...

No because it is only 20% of the population that has genital herpes which directly contradicts what you said because you are dishonest.

I mean holy shit I don't even think I disagree with you all that much on this point, but you're so full of shit that you will defend this dude as some poor oppressed victim seeing nothing wrong with the fact that he put his immediate desires before the girl he exposed to this virus.

Whether it's a deadly, life-threatening disease or an embarrassing, permanent one like herpes, she had no idea she was exposing herself to a virus by consenting to have sex.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

3rd September 2011, 18:39

I think perhaps the fundamental point is that vanguard 1917 is judging people's actions in an objective fashion, rather than taking into account the preexisting views of society and how that affects peoples actions.

Case in point, is gential herpes more significant than a cold sore? Well, in an objective description of their symptoms, perhaps not, but due to the stigma involved in the latter compared to the former, it would take a real twat not to care about passing on one, wheras the passing on of the former seems relatively acceptable transgression.

Vanguard admits himself that the "devestating effects" of gential herpes are "are emotional and irrational, the result of decades of media and government sensationalism and fear-mongering." but then seems to think that because he feels it is wrong people are so prudish about sexual acts, we should ignore the fact that the emotional effects are still real, even if they are caused by mistaken prudish beliefs in society, and that therefore the transmission of herses though sex takes a far greater deal of negligence or malice than transmitting the flu or cold sores.

To be honest, I have to add here, I think you have a liberal outlook on this, and its ironic given that you are seemingly able to see and call people who believe chimps shouldn't be poached liberals for ignoring the livilhooods of the poachers, you are ignoring the additional malice or neglience required of sexually transmitting a stimgatised disease to someone in favour of your judging actions against the background of how you view society should actually work, rather than it does?

Vanguard1917

4th September 2011, 01:52

I see the concept of "the punishment fitting the crime" is an alien one to you. STDs require intimate physical contact - the flu is airborne, and can be spread simply by breathing. The prosecution would have to rule out both aerial and surface vectors of transmission, which considering that the flu spreads by coughing and sneezing would be impossible, since the old woman could have coughed/sneezed when the spouse was not even in the room, and he could have subsequently picked it up from the air or from a surface after the event.

But if she gave him a cold sore, then off to court?

Sex workers are actually very conscious of things like STDs, as it is directly relevant to their livelihood. A sex worker that has an STD but still has intimate physical contact with johns regardless is equivalent to a truck driver doing their work while tanked.

My point was that feminists have not traditionally backed calls for police action against prostitutes who have spread STDs. Something which, following your logic, we would advocate assuming we have proof or admission of guilt.

Since when are bourgeois charities the final arbiters of right and wrong?

They're not. I'm pointing out that people who you might call liberals have opposed the court's decisions.

Had the transmission been a genuine accident, what was stopping him from pleading "not guilty"? The burden of proof rests on the prosecution as I recall, and they would need more than her word against his to successfully reach a guilty verdict.

I don't know. Shit lawyer?

No because it is only 20% of the population that has genital herpes which directly contradicts what you said because you are dishonest.

Nope. If you go back to my post, Sonny Jim, you will see that i said: "Herpes is very easy to transmit through skin-to-skin contact, which is why about 80 per cent of the UK population has it."

I did not say "genital herpes", but herpes in general.

I mean holy shit I don't even think I disagree with you all that much on this point, but you're so full of shit that you will defend this dude as some poor oppressed victim seeing nothing wrong with the fact that he put his immediate desires before the girl he exposed to this virus.

As do hundreds of people every weekend, both male and female. Should they all be arrested?

Vanguard admits himself that the "devestating effects" of gential herpes are "are emotional and irrational, the result of decades of media and government sensationalism and fear-mongering." but then seems to think that because he feels it is wrong people are so prudish about sexual acts, we should ignore the fact that the emotional effects are still real, even if they are caused by mistaken prudish beliefs in society, and that therefore the transmission of herses though sex takes a far greater deal of negligence or malice than transmitting the flu or cold sores.

A much more intelligent post than the others, but i think that you've made a crucial mistake here.

If you accept that the significance of herpes is "emotional and irrational" rather than medical, that it is something which has been blown all out of proportion by the media and the state, then surely you should oppose actions that perpetuate this state of affairs, such as cases like this imprisonment?

PhoenixAsh

4th September 2011, 02:14

Agian....like to point out that you are making some very huge leaps here.

You are making a transition from getting convicted because of a victim indictment
to prosecuting by arresting everybody who is suspected of...

That is a huge leap there...

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th September 2011, 02:21

But if she gave him a cold sore, then off to court?

Is that the sound of goalposts shifting I hear?

My point was that feminists have not traditionally backed calls for police action against prostitutes who have spread STDs. Something which, following your logic, we would advocate assuming we have proof or admission of guilt.

And my point was that most sex workers aren't fucking dumb enough to risk their own livelihoods by having intimate contact with johns while knowingly carrying an STD, just like most truck drivers aren't fucking dumb enough to drive while sloshed.

Unlike you, I credit sex workers and people in general with at least some intelligence.

They're not. I'm pointing out that people who you might call liberals have opposed the court's decisions.

I'm not a liberal, why should I care about their opinions? They may do worthy work in disseminating information and practical advice and assistance with regards to sexual health, but that doesn't make them any more qualified than the rest of us to decide policy.

I don't know. Shit lawyer?

Or maybe the prosecution had convincing evidence that the transmission was malicious or wilfully negligent.

As do hundreds of people every weekend, both male and female. Should they all be arrested?

Most of those people are asymptomatic and therefore unaware that they carry an STD. That's the vital point you're ignoring.

Vanguard1917

4th September 2011, 02:45

You are making a transition from getting convicted because of a victim indictment
to prosecuting by arresting everybody who is suspected of...

Not necessarily. But if you criminalise something like this, you'll likely see more people coming forward with such cases.

And in the real world, if you have casual sex with different partners, and especially if you don't use condoms consistently, you'll likely pick up an STD at some point. That's a fact of life. It's also a fact of life that, for a man or a woman trying to sleep with someone they met on a night out, mentioning the fact that they have an STD is not always going to be their priority. And when there are STDs like herpes and gonorrhea that can be transmitted through oral sex, condoms aren't going to help because most people don't use condoms in such cases. That's why it's best to take responsibility for your own behaviour and accept that STDs are out there.

Criminalising STDs is not going to do anything to stop them. What it will do is invite the state and the police to meddle more and more in people's sex lives. That might be what the puritan conservatives have been wanting all along, but it's not something which so-called radicals should be advocating.

Vanguard1917

4th September 2011, 02:49

Is that the sound of goalposts shifting I hear?

And your answer is?

And my point was that most sex workers aren't fucking dumb enough to risk their own livelihoods by having intimate contact with johns while knowingly carrying an STD

That's not true, though, at least not globally speaking. Unprotected sex is very common, if not the norm, for prostitutes in some parts of the world.

If a man goes to the police with evidence that he caught an STD from such a prostitute, you would want her arrested and locked up, whereas most feminists certainly wouldn't.

Most of those people are asymptomatic and therefore unaware that they carry an STD.

Most, but not all. That's why i said 'hundreds of people' rather than thousands.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th September 2011, 03:47

And your answer is?

It's not as simple as that, is it? The other party has to believe that the act of transmission was malicious or wilfully negligent, press charges, and then they have to hold up in court, meaning that more evidence than "he said, she said" is needed to reach a guilty verdict.

That's not true, though, at least not globally speaking. Unprotected sex is very common, if not the norm, for prostitutes in some parts of the world.

Unprotected sex is not the same thing as knowingly having sex with others while carrying an STD.

If a man goes to the police with evidence that he caught an STD from such a prostitute, you would want her arrested and locked up, whereas most feminists certainly wouldn't.

The strawman is afire. Prosecution is only appropriate if there are grounds to build a case of malicious intent or negligence.

Most, but not all. That's why i said 'hundreds of people' rather than thousands.

What, you think people shouldn't be punished for spreading disease through malice or wilful negligence? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th September 2011, 03:57

Fucking amazing. What's really disturbing here is that so many posters on this site rush to defend the bourgeois state as a neutral "arbiter of justice" that hovers above society, protecting the interests of the human species, when in fact it is an oppressive tool wielded by the ruling class.

What's next, backing the calls raised by some "family values" conservatives to put anyone with an STI to into forced quarantine?

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th September 2011, 04:05

This is really nuts.

Will those infected with HPV -- which something like 1 of every 4 people has -- now be effectively banned from having sex, since HPV can be passed on even with condom usage? Or will they just have to get state-sponsored tattoos above their genitals alerting potential sexual partners? Maybe we can start a petition to make monthly STI checks mandatory, with the results posted in an online database? After all, HPV is potentially much more harmful.

It's interesting that the arguments in this thread are in direct opposition to the opinions of health experts.
"Being sent to prison for 14 months for passing on herpes simplex is like being sent down for ten years for a parking offence," said Dr Colm O’Mahoney, sexual health consultant at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

"This is outrageous. Will children now be prosecuted for 'giving' their friends chickenpox?

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th September 2011, 04:13

And who the hell is going to want to get an STI check now? If you do, and it turns up you have something (like billions around the world), it can later be used against you in court! Even if you were honest and told your partners, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from using it against you later if/when the relationship soured. The only prevention from prosecution then would be to eliminate evidence of a prior infect, i.e. not to get tested!

The only thing more fucked up by this intrusion into private lives by the state is the support it's getting here.

"It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular code of behaviour..." - Report of the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (1957)

What a long way we've come in such a short period of time.

It's also of note that the "Offenses against the person act" this man was prosecuted under once made sexual activity between men illegal.

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th September 2011, 04:17

And my point was that most sex workers aren't fucking dumb enough to risk their own livelihoods by having intimate contact with johns while knowingly carrying an STDAre you kidding? Yeah, right... when they get an infection, they just go back to their old tenured professor position at Yale! :rolleyes:

Infection rates are often much higher in sex workers than in the general population, especially where the practice is illegal.

What you do think the impoverished sex worked in Pattaya does when she has an outbreak of herpes? Take a bus back to the tiny plot of land her family lives on the northern countryside and say "sorry I can't provide for you family!"

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th September 2011, 04:32

Are you kidding? Yeah, right... when they get an infection, they just go back to their old tenured professor position at Yale! :rolleyes:

Or they could get it treated, which in the UK can be done for free on the NHS.

Infection rates are often much higher in sex workers than in the general population, especially where the practice is illegal.

All the more reason for A) both parties to take precautions and B) prostitution to be decriminalised.

What you do think the impoverished sex worked in Pattaya does when she has an outbreak of herpes? Take a bus back to the tiny plot of land her family lives on the northern countryside and say "sorry I can't provide for you family!"

While I doubt the facilities for sex workers in Pattaya (Why are we discussing Thailand?) are much good, I'm also not aware of any of them being charged with deliberately spreading infections.

Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

4th September 2011, 06:28

"Is this interference into people's sexual lives a new low for the British courts?"

WTF? No. He both refused to inform and lied to his partner and she got a disease that will never go away as a result. And you're worried about interference in his sexual life. FFS

This, honestly I think this would be worse than actual physical assault. I mean, if I got the shit kicked out of me; bruises heal, nose can be cracked back into place, etc. If I get cut or stabbed, my mate can stich me up or doctors can fix me up and I'll basically be fine provided it isn't serious. With this, these are life long diseases and if it's a disease like the HIV it's a potentially deadliy if not outright fatal disease if you don't have health insurance.

#FF0000

4th September 2011, 08:42

Nope. If you go back to my post, Sonny Jim, you will see that i said: "Herpes is very easy to transmit through skin-to-skin contact, which is why about 80 per cent of the UK population has it."

I did not say "genital herpes", but herpes in general.

Well, yeah I know. Because you are dishonest. We are all talking about genital herpes and you know it.

As do hundreds of people every weekend, both male and female. Should they all be arrested? Yeah see that's the thing. Probably not. It's an extremely problematic thing to do that but exposing someone to a permanent condition like that is a p. horrible thing to do.

Agent Equality

4th September 2011, 09:07

All that I have got out of this thread is that Vanguard1917 is severely trying to downgrade the seriousness of maliciously giving someone an incurable disease that is quite painful and quite embarrassing, then calling those who think that the offender should be punished are supporting bourgeois institutions.

Honestly just use common fucking sense. How the fucking fuck would you feel if your girlfriend or ex girlfriend knew that they had an incurable painful std (but you didnt) and then went ahead and gave it to you after a fight? How would you feel to know that this person just gave you this disease knowingly and willingly and that you could never get rid of it.

Even if you try to downplay the actual physical threats of the disease, you can never downplay the social stigma that comes with having an std, particularly one such as genital herpes. Not to mention the emotional and mental pain that also comes with knowing you are going to forever be shunned by an uncaring society and that you will have to hide this disease the best you can if you wish to avoid such a fate.

And all the fucking while your ex is just laughing at you because they got away with it.

Either: A.) you're a fucking emotionless robot, B.) you're an idiot who has completely thrown common sense and thought out the window, or C.) you're a maniacal asshole who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing, regardless if it is against arguments that completely destroy your logic.

You could be all 3 as far as I'm concerned. And this isn't even taking into account any bias I might have against your name (you should be ashamed to even have such a name if you ask me) or political convictions

pluckedflowers

4th September 2011, 09:48

What's really disturbing here is that so many posters on this site rush to defend the bourgeois state as a neutral "arbiter of justice" that hovers above society, protecting the interests of the human species, when in fact it is an oppressive tool wielded by the ruling class.

Oh come the fuck off it. I guess since we don't want to defend the bourgeois state we should make a post about "discrimination" anytime anyone anywhere gets convicted of anything.

Will those infected with HPV -- which something like 1 of every 4 people has -- now be effectively banned from having sex, since HPV can be passed on even with condom usage?

No, they simply won't be allowed to knowingly endanger the health of other people without telling them about it first.

It's interesting that the arguments in this thread are in direct opposition to the opinions of health experts.

If by health experts you mean the one health expert you quoted here who is making an argument that isn't in any way grounded in his expertise and, indeed, ignores the principle facts of the case (namely, misrepresentation and willful negligence) just like you and your friend have been doing in this thread.

Vanguard1917

4th September 2011, 13:10

The strawman is afire. Prosecution is only appropriate if there are grounds to build a case of malicious intent or negligence.

Yes, and a sex worker having sex without a condom while she has an STD would probably be considered 'negligent'.

So in your book she should be arrested and prosecuted. Aren't you, after all, the person who said:

"Why shouldn't people be prosecuted for knowingly having sex with someone while carrying an STD, and not informing the other party before the act?"

All that I have got out of this thread is that Vanguard1917 is severely trying to downgrade the seriousness of maliciously giving someone an incurable disease that is quite painful and quite embarrassing

Actually i've been arguing here with people who believe that passing herpes itself is groungs for prosecution, regardless of malice, assuming the carrier knew he or she had the virus and did not tell the partner.

Honestly just use common fucking sense. How the fucking fuck would you feel if your girlfriend or ex girlfriend knew that they had an incurable painful std (but you didnt) and then went ahead and gave it to you after a fight? How would you feel to know that this person just gave you this disease knowingly and willingly and that you could never get rid of it.

I would see that as a matter for me and her to sort out -- not a matter for me, her, a few pigs and a judge.

Why on earth would i, as a grown adult, call in the authorities to intervene in my sex life?

No, they simply won't be allowed to knowingly endanger the health of other people without telling them about it first.

So NHIA's online database idea is all fine and dandy then?

I join him in being shocked at the level of indifference (if not outright support) shown here to bringing the police state into people's bedrooms.

pluckedflowers

4th September 2011, 14:03

So NHIA's online database idea is all fine and dandy then?

I can think of good reasons to criticize such an idea. The fact that it might cause problems for assholes who don't feel like telling prospective sexual partners they have genital herpes just isn't one of them.

I join him in being shocked at the level of indifference (if not outright support) shown here to bringing the police state into people's bedrooms.

Fortunately, no one here is supporting any such thing. This asshole didn't get caught on fucking CCTV. His girlfriend brought the case against him because she had been victimized by his willful negligence and deceit. It's you who are arguing that she shouldn't have any legal recourse in this case. So you wouldn't want to take legal action in similar circumstances. Good for you, have a gold star. Your preferences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not this woman ought to have some recourse after having been infected with a disease she will have to deal with for the rest of her life because some dickhead didn't feel like telling her about it.

But, by all means, do go on making this all about you.

Vanguard1917

4th September 2011, 18:30

I can think of good reasons to criticize such an idea. The fact that it might cause problems for assholes who don't feel like telling prospective sexual partners they have genital herpes just isn't one of them.

I know, because you live in your own naive dream world where everyone gives out personal medical details to every prospective casual sexual partner they meet on the weekend. Whether you like it or not, that's not how the real world works. And introducing greater police powers and state survaillence is not going to change this situation for the better. The fact that you advocate such things ought to make you re-evaluate your politics.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th September 2011, 05:14

Yes, and a sex worker having sex without a condom while she has an STD would probably be considered 'negligent'.

So in your book she should be arrested and prosecuted. Aren't you, after all, the person who said:

"Why shouldn't people be prosecuted for knowingly having sex with someone while carrying an STD, and not informing the other party before the act?"

A sex worker is providing a service. If they do not let their prospective customers know of any STDs they know to be carrying, why shouldn't the now-infected customer press charges? They were looking to purchase sex, not an un-advertised STD.

I know, because you live in your own naive dream world where everyone gives out personal medical details to every prospective casual sexual partner they meet on the weekend.

Or if you know you have an STD, you could not be an asshole and not have sex with people who don't know you have it.

PhoenixAsh

5th September 2011, 05:16

Not necessarily. But if you criminalise something like this, you'll likely see more people coming forward with such cases.

And rightfully so.

And in the real world, if you have casual sex with different partners, and especially if you don't use condoms consistently, you'll likely pick up an STD at some point. That's a fact of life.Yes...

And when you KNOW you have an STD and then NOT inform partners and continue to have sexual intercourse with them you are a fucking waste of air.

It's also a fact of life that, for a man or a woman trying to sleep with someone they met on a night out, mentioning the fact that they have an STD is not always going to be their priority.O hell for some men waiting for consent is not a priority...what is your point here?

For some robbers the emotions of their victims are NOT a priority....again...what is and is not your priority does NOT negate your responsibility and culpability.

I can not even understand why you can even defend this.

And when there are STDs like herpes and gonorrhea that can be transmitted through oral sex, condoms aren't going to help because most people don't use condoms in such cases. That's why it's best to take responsibility for your own behaviour and accept that STDs are out there. No...while you should behave responsibly the other party has a res;onsibility too...and a culpability if gthey KNOW they have an STD and KNOW that they are about to infect somebody.

This is NOT a difficult concept...and it is incomprehensible that you can defend this issue.

Criminalising STDs is not going to do anything to stop them.Criminalising NOT INFORMING people that you have one when you are engaging in unprotected sex however IS going to rapidly reset priotities.

WE ARE NOT CRIMINALISING STDS...WE ARE CRIMINALISING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OF KNOWINGLY INFECTING SOMEBODY

I write that in CAPS because it is very obvious you are being very dishonest and shiffting the argument....so maybe big letters will make you understand better.

l do is invite the state and the police to meddle more and more in people's sex lives. That might be what the puritan conservatives have been wanting all along, but it's not something which so-called radicals should be advocating.Bullcrap. You are advocating that people are allowed to willingly and knowingly infect people with virusses and life lasting diseases. That is the bottom line....this has nothing to do with puritanism...this has everything to do with you advocating the spreading of disease, abuse and bodily harm....and you are advocating taking recourse away from victims.

Vanguard1917

5th September 2011, 20:34

A sex worker is providing a service. If they do not let their prospective customers know of any STDs they know to be carrying, why shouldn't the now-infected customer press charges?

Because the police should have no role to play in people's consensual sex lives.

Not to mention the fact that i don't believe increasing police repression of some of the most downtrodden sections of society is a particularly socialist demand.

But you clearly have no issue with that.

Or if you know you have an STD, you could not be an asshole and not have sex with people who don't know you have it.

Yes, but the point is: being an arsehole is not in itself a criminal offence.

And when you KNOW you have an STD and then NOT inform partners and continue to have sexual intercourse with them you are a fucking waste of air.

Yes, i'm sure you'd make a great audience member on Jeremy Kyle, but when it comes to matters of state prosecution, you're somewhat misguided. Please do all you can to dodge jury service.

bricolage

5th September 2011, 21:18

Not to mention the fact that i don't believe increasing police repression of some of the most downtrodden sections of society is a particularly socialist demand.
preach.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th September 2011, 21:51

Because the police should have no role to play in people's consensual sex lives.

Not to mention the fact that i don't believe increasing police repression of some of the most downtrodden sections of society is a particularly socialist demand.

But you clearly have no issue with that.

By your logic, if someone goes into an eatery with unsafe practices, and falls ill as a result, the eatery should not be penalised. In fact, we shouldn't be enforcing food safety standards at all according to your logic.

I've already pointed out that sex workers in the UK have access to free at the point of use healthcare and extensive information. Since sex workers are generally not stupid selfish idiots like you, they would have the sense to make use of such facilities for their own benefit as much as that of their customers.

Yes, but the point is: being an arsehole is not in itself a criminal offence.

It does when that assholishness extends to maliciously spreading STDs or not giving a fuck when one is reasonably certain of carrying one.

Vanguard1917

5th September 2011, 22:25

By your logic, if someone goes into an eatery with unsafe practices, and falls ill as a result, the eatery should not be penalised. In fact, we shouldn't be enforcing food safety standards at all according to your logic.

A restaurant or cafe is a business.

A sex worker on the streets of Delhi in India who has an STD is unlikely to have the privilege of shutting up shop and going into business elsewhere. Same goes for most street prostitutes in Western countries.

So yes, realistically speaking, if a sex worker catches an STD, she is going to be compelled by her material circumstances to carry on doing what she does.

And when she is in court for breaking a law you wanted enacted -- for example, by giving herpes to a businessman from Mumbai -- you will be on the side of the judge when he sends her to prison, all because of the tragic illogicality of your argument.

Food for thought, eh?

stupid selfish idiots like you

And what made you think that's what i am?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th September 2011, 12:17

A restaurant or cafe is a business.

A sex worker on the streets of Delhi in India who has an STD is unlikely to have the privilege of shutting up shop and going into business elsewhere. Same goes for most street prostitutes in Western countries.

Bullshit through and through. Sex workers in the UK can go to a sexual health clinic (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Sexual-health-clinics/Pages/Definition.aspx) just like other UK residents. When one provides a service, it is not unreasonable to expect certain minimum standards, which includes visiting health professionals if one has an illness that affects one's work.

And what made you think that's what i am?

Because you think it's A-OK to be wilfully negligent, if not malicious, and have sexual intercourse with others while knowingly carrying an STD without informing them. I hope your internal ugliness shows up externally, so that people are warned off from potentially catching anything off a Typhoid Tony like you.

Invader Zim

6th September 2011, 17:27

Wait... A guy who knew he had an STD slept with a person with out informing them of this. So basically, he denied the woman the opportunity to make an informed decision, so while she may have given consent to intercourse she was deliberately denied the option of informed consent.

Will those infected with HPV -- which something like 1 of every 4 people has -- now be effectively banned from having sex, since HPV can be passed on even with condom usage?

That isn't the issue. The issue is that an individual knew that they had the disease and failed to iform their partner and carried on as if everything was normal, and denied her the right to an informed decision. So you can drop that dishonest strawman arguments.

But let us examine your argument which basically boils down to saying - as it relates to this scenario - that a man's right to get laid trumps a woman's right to making an informed decision.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th September 2011, 18:19

That isn't the issue. The issue is that an individual knew that they had the disease and failed to iform their partner and carried on as if everything was normal, and denied her the right to an informed decision. So you can drop that dishonest strawman arguments.

You ignored my following posts which ties in with that:

"And who the hell is going to want to get an STI check now? If you do, and it turns up you have something (like billions around the world), it can later be used against you in court! Even if you were honest and told your partners, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from using it against you later if/when the relationship soured. The only prevention from prosecution then would be to eliminate evidence of a prior infect, i.e. not to get tested!"

But let us examine your argument which basically boils down to saying - as it relates to this scenario - that a man's right to get laid trumps a woman's right to making an informed decision.

I don't know what kind of sex you're having, but it isn't something (or shouldn't be) that a man "gets" and a woman suffers through.

Anyway, this isn't a question of rights or anything like that. The question is whether you support this unprecedented interference in the private sexual lives of individuals.

* * *

In real life, there are all kinds of things that go said or unsaid between people, even (or especially) when they're going to have sex. That's the reality. People don't disclose their full sexual histories, people don't always tell the truth about whether or not they are in a relationship, some transgender people don't reveal that they are transgender, some prostitutes can't afford to wait 30-60 days for STI treatment so they work through it, etc.; are they all subject to investigation and prosecution now?

PhoenixAsh

6th September 2011, 19:13

Something which is still unanswered:

If somebody knowingly infects somebody else. And that person wants to seek vindication for that. What do you suggest should be done?

How should we treat such crimes? Since the argument is that government can not thread on induvidual lives and I take it that in extend means no post revolutionary society can either....what posibilities has the victim in all this?

Because right now...the argument comes down to: Tough luck...

Vanguard1917

6th September 2011, 20:15

Bullshit through and through.

No, your position is very clear. And it's not a position that activists among sex workers, or feminists more generally, would sympathise with.

Because you think it's A-OK to be wilfully negligent, if not malicious, and have sexual intercourse with others while knowingly carrying an STD without informing them.

I never said it is 'OK', so you're simply lying. I said it's not a matter for the police state to be involved in. There's an important distinction there.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th September 2011, 20:58

If somebody knowingly infects somebody else. And that person wants to seek vindication for that. What do you suggest should be done?

That's not really the question here.

The question is whether that question is one that should be answered by the people involved, or the bourgeois state.

And that leaves aside all the other questions about "knowingly infecting someone" (how to prove they knew they were infected, how to prove they didn't tell the person, how to prove they infected the person and not the other way around, etc.; and even further, which infections are sufficiently injurious -- is it illegal to pass the flu by sneezing on a subway?, if you have herpes can you kiss your child?, if you have a cold can you take an airplane?, if a sex worker has HPV should she be jailed for working?, etc.).

How should we treat such crimes? Since the argument is that government can not thread on induvidual lives and I take it that in extend means no post revolutionary society can either....what posibilities has the victim in all this?

Who is "we?" I don't belong to the ruling class or its state apparatus. Do you?

Because right now...the argument comes down to: Tough luck...

No. Right now it comes down to a bunch of leftists cheering on the bourgeois state as it interferes in the private sexual lives of individuals, and pretending (or ignorantly believing) that the apparatus is just some neutral arbiter of justice pursuing the general interests of humanity as a whole.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th September 2011, 21:00

I never said it is 'OK', so you're simply lying. I said it's not a matter for the police state to be involved in. There's an important distinction there.

For some folks, the state is such a hallowed thing that they can't see past it. So in any kind of situation, they can only look to the state for a solution. They can't even imagine individual human beings handling things themselves, on their own terms. This is bourgeois ideology in full effect.

kahimikarie

6th September 2011, 21:13

Weird how op is posting the kind of issue that libertarians buzz about and is speaking out against it just the way libertarians do.

Btw it's not true (at least in developed countries, which the topic of this thread seems to refer to) that sex workers have higher than average STD rates. They actually have lower than the general population because they frequently get tested.

It's also not true genital herpes is basically benign. It makes people more susceptible to getting HIV, for one thing. And outbreaks are extremely painful and disgusting. Do you think it's really no big deal to have bleeding painful sores all over your genitals and at the same time have a horrible flu, even if it only does occur a few times a year? (in some people more often.). And the social trauma of having herpes is quite real. You may think it's silly and created by mass hysteria, but that doesn't change the fact that herpes is a really humiliating thing to have. Imagine telling your friends and potential partners you have it.

PhoenixAsh

6th September 2011, 21:35

This is a nice way to dodge the question. Which was very simple: How do you propose to resolve these issues?

Because as it stands now is that the argument is that it is tough luck for the victim because the victim is made responsible for preventing malicious behaviour from the perpetrator by being made responsible for precautionary measures and getting the authorities involved is infringing on our private sex lives.

PhoenixAsh

6th September 2011, 21:38

For some folks, the state is such a hallowed thing that they can't see past it. So in any kind of situation, they can only look to the state for a solution. They can't even imagine individual human beings handling things themselves, on their own terms. This is bourgeois ideology in full effect.

So you are proposing we should revisit lynching? Because it pretty much is a given that if somebody lies about being infected and knowingly infect you...they are not going to nicely settle the matter.

So we should be allowed to take them out back and give them a righteous beating? Because I sure as hell would like to do that when somebody knowingly infected me with a disease I would never get rid of or which was potentially leathal.

Vanguard1917

6th September 2011, 22:53

So we should be allowed to take them out back and give them a righteous beating? Because I sure as hell would like to do that when somebody knowingly infected me with a disease I would never get rid of or which was potentially leathal.

Good for you. Thankfully the majority of people aren't maniacs who go around battering women because they got an STD.

This is a nice way to dodge the question. Which was very simple: How do you propose to resolve these issues?

Have you ever been in a relationship? If the person you're with does something which you find insulting or outrageous, how do you resolve it? By phoning the relavant authorities?

You go so far as to imply that if it weren't for the extension of police powers, we'd all go around lynching each other.

And you seem to have so much love for the police that you want a society of grasses who defer to the state even on matters that relate to their sex lives. Never mind trying to limit police interference into our day-to-day lives. Apparently we're now supposed to call in the cops if we have dishonest partners.

PhoenixAsh

7th September 2011, 00:19

Good for you. Thankfully the majority of people aren't maniacs who go around battering women because they got an STD.

At least I am not somebody who willingly wants men to infect them with life long diseases....

But nice assumption on heterosexuality there. Noted.

Have you ever been in a relationship? If the person you're with does something which you find insulting or outrageous, how do you resolve it? By phoning the relavant authorities?Offensive and outrageous....

Infecting with a life long disease....

Yeah....:rolleyes:

You go so far as to imply that if it weren't for the extension of police powers, we'd all go around lynching each other.No...I asked what you wanted to propose to solve the issue...YOU KEEP DODGING THE QUESTION. So I took a nice wild guess....

But you seem to suggest they TALK about it. Which is LAUGHABLE. Since that would have implied tehre would be HONESTY up front. And since they didn't tell in the first place...well...thats really not such a birght intelligent idea. Not ot menion the fact that in the case you quote...the guy lied and denied for two fucking years.

And you seem to have so much love for the police that you want a society of grasses who defer to the state even on matters that relate to their sex lives. Never mind trying to limit police interference into our day-to-day lives. Apparently we're now supposed to call in the cops if we have dishonest partners.My position on cops is very well known... But lets play your game...

You want vicims of crimes and abuse and rape to shut up because ...well...lets face it....going to the authorities would make you a grass in your opinion.

See...I can make stupid logical assumptions and overdrawn unfounded conclusions too...

Aren't we a happy bunch.

But...instead...you could....

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION

What do you propose exactly for the vicim to get vindication?

kahimikarie

7th September 2011, 00:23

I think the argument is a dumb one. The idea that the state shouldn't be involved in private romantic/sexual matters was the reason given for not outlawing maritial rape or spousal abuse. Obviously the state isn't a neutral actor and no one here supports it in its current form, but with all it's flaws some protection and punishment for crimes is needed before the revolution.

Vanguard1917

7th September 2011, 00:47

At least I am not somebody who willingly wants men to infect them with life long diseases....

No body here 'wants' that. So that is mere straw-man territory.

No...I asked what you wanted to propose to solve the issue...YOU KEEP DODGING THE QUESTION. So I took a nice wild guess....

But you seem to suggest they TALK about it. Which is LAUGHABLE. Since that would have implied tehre would be HONESTY up front. And since they didn't tell in the first place...well...thats really not such a birght intelligent idea. Not ot menion the fact that in the case you quote...the guy lied and denied for two fucking years.

It's up to them how they deal with it. Maybe the partner forgives or maybe he/she doesn't. That's not for me or anyone else but them to make a ruling on.

There are men and women who have forgiven far greater sins. And there are men and women who have split up over less. That's the real world of relationships. It's not the business of courts, judges and the police.

You want vicims of crimes and abuse and rape to shut up because ...well...lets face it....going to the authorities would make you a grass in your opinion.

Yes, but we're not talking about rape here, are we? We're talking about something of a totally different nature, and something which women can be guilty of just as much, if not more, than men. (STDs like herpes are more prevalent in women, for biological reasons. In theory, therefore, they make up a greater proportion of your potential convicts.)

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION

What do you propose exactly for the vicim to get vindication?

The same thing that i would propose to the partner of a man or woman who, say, is unfaithful and sleeps around: 'it is your relationship and your decision'.

In fact, i would wager that many people would sooner forgive a partner sleeping with them knowingly with an STD because of fear of rejection, loss, etc., than a partner who is unfaithful.

In either case, what i definitely would not propose is extending the state's remit to cover such areas of people's lives.

PhoenixAsh

7th September 2011, 00:59

It's up to them how they deal with it. Maybe the partner forgives or maybe he/she doesn't. That's not for me or anyone else but them to make a ruling on.

There are men and women who have forgiven far greater sins. And there are men and women who have split up over less. That's the real world of relationships. It's not the business of courts, judges and the police.

And what if the partner does not foregive? What isf he or she wants reperations for the fact that they are saddled with a life long infection or even lethal one?

Because right now it seems you are arguing: tough luck...don't like it...split up

Yes, but we're not talking about rape here, are we? We're talking about something of a totally different nature, and something which women can be guilty of just as much, if not more, than men.

And men can be raped by women too. So that is not a valid argument.

The same thing that i would propose to the partner of a man or woman who, say, is unfaithful and sleeps around: 'it is your relationship and your decision'.

Well that is a ridiculous argument. There is no equation whatsoever between being unfaithful and being left with a life long disease or potentially leathal one or one which requires you to make severe adjustments...or which saddles up the child of your partner with a disease.

So no..not adequate.

you seem to be arguing that its: tough luck.

And that doesn't cut it and is a ridiculous position.

In fact, i would wager that many people would sooner forgive a partner sleeping with them knowingly with an STD because of fear of rejection, loss, etc., than a partner who is unfaithful.

No...I do not think so.

In either case, what i definitely would not propose is extending the state's remit to cover such areas of people's lives.

No...you propose to talk it over and go your merry way. :rolleyes: nothing happend here...no crime was committed and no foul was done.

Really...

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th September 2011, 01:03

At least I am not somebody who willingly wants men to infect them with life long diseases....

Once you see this sort of "argument" being made, you know there's no real sense in even discussing the subject anymore.

Vanguard1917

7th September 2011, 01:14

And what if the partner does not foregive? What isf he or she wants reperations for the fact that they are saddled with a life long infection or even lethal one?

They would have no basis to ask for the person's conviction.

If there were such a basis:

What if a man with swine flu came into work and made several people sick?

What if a man with TB came coughing into my home and endangered the health of everyone in it?

What if a mother with herpes (a cold sore) kissed her child and passed on her virus?

What if a man with scabies on his hand shook mine and passed on his condition?

No...I do not think so.

You couldn't imagine a situation in which you'd be more understanding of a loved one who hid their condition because they loved you a lot and were terrified of losing you, than someone who went behind your back with numerous men or women?

no crime was committed

Indeed.

PhoenixAsh

7th September 2011, 01:34

They would have no basis to ask for the person's conviction.

If there were such a basis:

What if a man with swine flu came into work and made several people sick?

If they knew he was infected...yes..he would be responsible and should be made to restitute damages. I think it is criminal liability stemming from gross negligience....and I suggest even some other punitative actions.

What if a man with TB came coughing into my home and endangered the health of everyone in it?

Was there an infection?

What if a man with scabies on his hand shook mine and passed on his condition?

Yes.

You couldn't imagine a situation in which you'd be more understanding of a loved one who hid their condition because they loved you a lot and were terrified of losing you, than someone who went behind your back with numerous men or women?

Yes...because case 1: somebody gets me killed or at least makes me seriously ill....and they COULD have insisted on a condom without mentioning the STD. Apparantly you need to put in a lot of exempting circumstances....to get the comparison passed.

Because case 2: somebody just gives me a bad feeling and no lasting damages are done...

Unless...case 1 is a direct result of case 2.

Indeed.

by that logic...

If I stick an infected needle into somebody?

Or realease a virus in a crowded area with the intent of infecting them an making them ill?

Or poisoned the water with a virus or bacteria causing an epidemic?

PhoenixAsh

7th September 2011, 01:34

Once you see this sort of "argument" being made, you know there's no real sense in even discussing the subject anymore.

Yes...exactly I though it was a fucking asinine line of reasoning by Vanguard too.

PhoenixAsh

8th September 2011, 00:42

O...yes,...I forgot.

I made a poll what would be more easilly forgiveable in the OI forum. As it stands now...several members voted wrong because I was such an idiot to word the question wrong.

But if you correct for those 3 who stated they voted wrong then the results are that so far it is about 50-50 with a slight favor (in the correction for those who said they voted wrong) for finding an STD more unforgiveable.

bcbm

8th September 2011, 06:12

Honestly just use common fucking sense. How the fucking fuck would you feel if your girlfriend or ex girlfriend knew that they had an incurable painful std (but you didnt) and then went ahead and gave it to you after a fight? How would you feel to know that this person just gave you this disease knowingly and willingly and that you could never get rid of it.

i would be upset and hurt. i wouldn't want to throw them in jail.

Even if you try to downplay the actual physical threats of the disease, you can never downplay the social stigma that comes with having an std, particularly one such as genital herpes.

actually i think if the actual 'physical threat' of the virus were more widely known it would be much easier to address the social stigma, which is relatively new.

Not to mention the emotional and mental pain that also comes with knowing you are going to forever be shunned by an uncaring society and that you will have to hide this disease the best you canlike... by not telling a partner you have it? what i see here is an argument for combating the social stigma and ignorance surrounding sexual infections, not an argument for putting people in jail. i also think this is an unrealistically bleak view of life with an incurable sti.

It's also not true genital herpes is basically benign. It makes people more susceptible to getting HIV, for one thing. And outbreaks are extremely painful and disgusting.

most individuals with HSV-2 infection never have sores, or they have very mild signs that they do not even notice or that they mistake for insect bites or another skin condition.

The scientific reality is that most people are asymptomatic, the virus causes no real health problems for a vast majority of people, and a vast majority (around 90%) of the Earth's population carries HSV-1, 2, or both.

Do you think it's really no big deal to have bleeding painful sores all over your genitals and at the same time have a horrible flu, even if it only does occur a few times a year? (in some people more often.).this is a worst case scenario, not the experience of most people with the virus. in a healthy immune system, assuming you even experience an outbreak, it will probably be uncomfortable but outbreaks will decrease over time and

antiviral medications can shorten and prevent outbreaks during the period of time the person takes the medication. In addition, daily suppressive therapy for symptomatic herpes can reduce transmission to partners.

And the social trauma of having herpes is quite real. You may think it's silly and created by mass hysteria, but that doesn't change the fact that herpes is a really humiliating thing to have.genital herpes was not seen as a problem until the late 1970's when the makers of acyclovir realized they needed to create a market for it. over the following years
There were multiple articles worded in fear-mongering and anxiety-provoking terminology, such as the now ubiquitous "attacks," "outbreaks," "victims," and "sufferers." At one point the term "herpetic" even entered the popular lexicon. The articles were published by Reader's Digest, U.S. News, and Time magazine, among others. A made-for-TV movie was named Intimate Agony. The peak was when Time magazine had 'Herpes: The New Scarlet Letter' on the cover in August 1982, forever stigmatizing the word in the public mind.

Imagine telling your friends and potential partners you have it.yes it must be traumatizing to the point where you would... not tell them? certainly you should be honest with your sexual partners, but i think the social trauma needs to be addressed as well. why should you feel ashamed for having a basically harmless virus that most people have in some form?

Infecting with a life long disease....

if someone gives a child hsv1 should that child seek prosecution?

PhoenixAsh

8th September 2011, 23:45

if someone gives a child hsv1 should that child seek prosecution?

If that was an intentional infection? I think the parents should be able to do that.

You all seem to have problems understanding the fact that we are talking about intentional infection.

You are actually spreading a disease intentionally.
You are actually making people intentionally sick.
You are actually intentionally causing harm to a persons health.

There is no other way about it. You can drag in all the examples and give al kinds of "what ifs" . But the core fact of the matter is that we have an induvidual who full well knowing he/she is going to do so (ergo: intent) is harming another persons health without knowing if that person has pre-existing conditions or not. Without knowing what risk he puts the other person into besides giving them a disease. Full well knowing the other person will be inconvenienced by this at the very least....and full well knowing he conributes to the spreading of that disease.

You can argue that it is not such a bad disease. Sure that MIGHT be the case. But then you are just haggling over the length and depth of the punishment.

You can drag all kinds of diseases into it. But then you are simply ignoring that we are talking about knowingly...a deliberate act...intent.

So what about gonnorhea? What about hepatitis? What about Syphilis? Trichomoniasis?

ALL these including herpes CAN have serious consequences. Consequences which may be unlikely...but would be completely and utterly absent if you did not knowingly infect that person with it.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th September 2011, 11:46

Hindsight:

What do you think of someone who goes on a date, has a cold sore (oral herpes) and kisses their date?

I'm somewhat in the middle on this issue, precisely because of the conundrum above. I'm sure we've all had cold sores before, which is oral herpes.

What distinguishes oral herpes from genital herpes is merely the social stigma. The problem is that within the realm of STDs there are of course some extremely serious conditions that, in the case of intentional infection, would certainly be morally reprehensible and deserve punishment.

Though herpes is an STD, should it not be classed slightly differently to those which can actually affect your fertility and mortality (since it is not only an STD but is inside many peoples' systems as it is, and can be caught non-sexually in its oral form - i.e., only the genital form of herpes is technically an STD).

bcbm

10th September 2011, 22:32

If that was an intentional infection? I think the parents should be able to do that.

if they know they have had cold sores in the past but are not currently having an outbreak and kiss a child who then later develops a cold sore because of this, should they be prosecuted?

You all seem to have problems understanding the fact that we are talking about intentional infection.

You are actually spreading a disease intentionally.
You are actually making people intentionally sick.
You are actually intentionally causing harm to a persons health. in the scenario described here it sounds like the guy didn't tell his partner he had the virus. i don't think this isn't the same as intentionally trying to spread it. having sex with someone with herpes doesn't mean you immediately get herpes. obviously its still a dick move but i think it was negligent more than intentional.

So what about gonnorhea? What about hepatitis? What about Syphilis? Trichomoniasis?

ALL these including herpes CAN have serious consequences. Consequences which may be unlikely...but would be completely and utterly absent if you did not knowingly infect that person with it.tons of people have all those. there is a vaccine for hepatisis and it is treatable as well. syphilis is rare and like gonorrhea and trichomoniasis is extremely treatable. this is why it is important to get tested often especially if you're sleeping with multiple partners.

prosecution for giving someone the clap? come on.

Vanguard1917

10th September 2011, 23:02

if they know they have had cold sores in the past but are not currently having an outbreak and kiss a child who then later develops a cold sore because of this, should they be prosecuted?

Even if someone (e.g. a relative) had a big, fat red cold sore on their top lip and kissed a child of mine, it's possible i might be a bit annoyed, but should i call the police?

What's in fact a minor daily occurance is at risk of being turned into a criminal offence that people can be imprisoned for -- if we accept the arguments being put forward by some here.

PhoenixAsh

11th September 2011, 15:29

Hindsight:

What do you think of someone who goes on a date, has a cold sore (oral herpes) and kisses their date?

My first long term girlfriend had one of those. We were 14 at the time. At our first date she had an slight outbreak. So when the date turned romantic she just told me that she really wanted to kiss me but that we couldn't kiss or mess around because of that. So there was no issue at all...just a little bit of frustration but also a huge amount of trust gained and given.

Point is...if you are going to kiss/fuck somebody who is at risk you should give that person a choice on how to proceed and not make that choice for them. Even if you are afraid they might react negatively and reject you over such issues. It may be an over simplification...but if they do they were obviously the bad choice and they neither respect you as a person nor value you for who you are and only for their perception of you. Not only that but you start eveything that follows based on withholding information which is very relevant for the other at that time. Which means you are obviously not trustworthy or worthy of trust.

Though the heart or lust may indicate somethig entirely different that is actually the only sound way to go for both people involved.

I'm somewhat in the middle on this issue, precisely because of the conundrum above. I'm sure we've all had cold sores before, which is oral herpes.

That really sucks. Women are often hit by herpes more virulently than men.

The girl I mentioned has 3 to 4 attacks every year for several weeks...which were really painful and uncomfortable for her. She had some kind of aleviating cream which helped but had a huge list of side effects including invertility and some other nasty things which were ranging from the 25% to 0.1% range.

What distinguishes oral herpes from genital herpes is merely the social stigma. The problem is that within the realm of STDs there are of course some extremely serious conditions that, in the case of intentional infection, would certainly be morally reprehensible and deserve punishment.

Well I don't know. 12 weeks every year of pain and discomfort sounds pretty much morally reprehensible to me...offcourse not everybody suffers from it like that. But that is merely a matter of chance since that knowledge is not something either party has before hand.

Though herpes is an STD, should it not be classed slightly differently to those which can actually affect your fertility and mortality (since it is not only an STD but is inside many peoples' systems as it is, and can be caught non-sexually in its oral form - i.e., only the genital form of herpes is technically an STD).

Though it does not affect fertility...Herpes can cause side effects during pregnancy.

But like I said somewhere before...the amount of punishment or what punishment is given is merely quantification. For me that is less of a point or issue than the concept of being culpable and punishable if the affected person wishes to find recourse. Obviously as in any act there are induvidual circumstances of the act which need to be weighted in and comparative circumstances which need to be weighted in.

PhoenixAsh

11th September 2011, 16:01

if they know they have had cold sores in the past but are not currently having an outbreak and kiss a child who then later develops a cold sore because of this, should they be prosecuted?

No. Though so far the information I have that skin contact or wound-saliva contact carries a risk factor 4% during outbreaks and less than that in other periods...and is even lower still when using medication. Though certain outbreaks my be asympthomatic.

Again his depends on wether it is male to female or female to mae infection. Men are less succeptable than women...and carry an overall 3% chance...while women carry a 8% chance.

in the scenario described here it sounds like the guy didn't tell his partner he had the virus. i don't think this isn't the same as intentionally trying to spread it. having sex with someone with herpes doesn't mean you immediately get herpes. obviously its still a dick move but i think it was negligent more than intentional.

The infection rate of herpes during unprotected sexual intercourse is on avarage about 50% per unprotected episode with an infected partner...it is higher for women who have an upward of 60% chance.

So the chances are huge somebody is going to get it. Lets just say...I really do not care for the odds....and especially not considering what can be a result.

tons of people have all those. there is a vaccine for hepatisis and it is treatable as well.

IF you caught it in time. Usually hepatitis wil be either acute or chronic....and in many cases will not have any sympthoms untill there is already damage done....not to mention te many, many misdiagnosis...and the fact that the virus is most often asympthomatic or have corss over sympthoms with other common ailments.

One in 100 infections get to develop it to such a serious state before it is caught that there is irreparable damage to the liver. EVEN if the body manages to clear itself of the infection.

syphilis is rare and like gonorrhea and trichomoniasis is extremely treatable. this is why it is important to get tested often especially if you're sleeping with multiple partners.

True...yet the treatments are hars and carry risks.

prosecution for giving someone the clap? come on.

Men...20% chance. Women 60-80% chance form single unrpotcted sexual intercourse act. Women are asympthomatic in half the cases...and in the other half they experience the same discharge as white flood (or however you call it in English). So they often do not catch the virus in time. The disease in 50% of the cases has a coinfection...meaning you have to treat two disease at the same time.

Claps are now also in many cases resisant to anti-biotics. Nasty...but true. Making that disease untreatable in some more common strain infections....unless the imune system manages to kick it...which is rare. It has huge effects on fertility, pregnancy and the development of ebryonic and fetal development...not to mention the effects on the CNT and overall imune system.

So no...claps is not merely something to shrug at.

bcbm

12th September 2011, 18:46

Again his depends on wether it is male to female or female to mae infection. Men are less succeptable than women...and carry an overall 3% chance...while women carry a 8% chance.

why does it depend, the scenario is cut and dry.

The infection rate of herpes during unprotected sexual intercourse is on avarage about 50% per unprotected episode with an infected partner...it is higher for women who have an upward of 60% chance. So the chances are huge somebody is going to get it.

with an infected male and uninfected female who do not regularly use condoms or valaciclovir but avoid sex during outbreaks, transmission rate is around 10% per year. using condoms reduces this by 50% and using valaciclovir 500mg daily by another 50%. with an infected female and uninfected male, the transmission rate is about 4% per year before condoms and valaciclovir.

Lets just say...I really do not care for the odds....and especially not considering what can be a result.

me either, people should be up front and honest with their partners. but people should also have a realistic view of the situation.

IF you caught it in time. Usually hepatitis wil be either acute or chronic....and in many cases will not have any sympthoms untill there is already damage done....not to mention te many, many misdiagnosis...and the fact that the virus is most often asympthomatic or have corss over sympthoms with other common ailments.

One in 100 infections get to develop it to such a serious state before it is caught that there is irreparable damage to the liver. EVEN if the body manages to clear itself of the infection.

this is why you should get regularly tested or be vaccinated before beginning sexual relationships. in the us, at least, most people are vaccinated for hepatisis in their early teens.

True...yet the treatments are hars and carry risks.

the treatment for syphillis is a onetime injection of penicillin if caught early, for the other two its an oral antibiotic. as far as i can tell the treatments are not any more harsh than dealing with strep throat and have about the same amount of risk.

Men...20% chance. Women 60-80% chance form single unrpotcted sexual intercourse act. Women are asympthomatic in half the cases...and in the other half they experience the same discharge as white flood (or however you call it in English). So they often do not catch the virus in time. The disease in 50% of the cases has a coinfection...meaning you have to treat two disease at the same time.

again, this is why you should get tested regularly.

Claps are now also in many cases resisant to anti-biotics.

an alarming trend, but it isn't 'many' at this point, completely resistant strains are fairly uncommon.

PhoenixAsh

12th September 2011, 20:07

why does it depend, the scenario is cut and dry.

Yes...as I said men have a 4% and women an 8% chance to be infected

with an infected male and uninfected female who do not regularly use condoms or valaciclovir but avoid sex during outbreaks, transmission rate is around 10% per year. using condoms reduces this by 50% and using valaciclovir 500mg daily by another 50%. with an infected female and uninfected male, the transmission rate is about 4% per year before condoms and valaciclovir.

Those numbers are NOT for sex with an infected person but for unprotected sex in general. Sex with an infected person caries an infection rate of 40-60% depending on, amongst others the sex of the person who in uninfected.

me either, people should be up front and honest with their partners. but people should also have a realistic view of the situation.

I completely agree that people should have a reaclistic view on the situation...and I think that not having a realistic view while very aware you are infected means you are culpable.

this is why you should get regularly tested or be vaccinated before beginning sexual relationships. in the us, at least, most people are vaccinated for hepatisis in their early teens.

Hepatitis vaccination are for hepatitis A and sometimes B. Both require multiple vaccinations...and both require a redo in 10 years. They both are under 90% certain. Meaning that 10% of people vaccinated may still be infected.

the treatment for syphillis is a onetime injection of penicillin if caught early, for the other two its an oral antibiotic. as far as i can tell the treatments are not any more harsh than dealing with strep throat and have about the same amount of risk.

And as Syphillis is asymptomatic in most cases, especially involving women, that early identification system does not work. In 30% of cases late term treatment is necessary.,...and those involve about 60% infections in women. And requires intravenous penecilin administration...this is called soft-chemotherapy. It is risky. 50% of cases involving this treatment for primary Syphilis will develop the Herxheimer reaction. 90% of cases involving secondary Syphilis will develop this reaction.

again, this is why you should get tested regularly.

Placing a greater burden on women.

an alarming trend, but it isn't 'many' at this point, completely resistant strains are fairly uncommon.

Its about 25% of the known anti-biotics in the treatment which are either renedered ineffective or to which a strain is completely immune. Thats actually quite a lot. The infection with a complete immune strain is indeed rarer but noteworthy enough because it has developed so rapidly.

black_tar_heroin

12th September 2011, 21:19

Dunno 'bout the details of this specific case... but,

if you intentionally infect someone with a disease which is life-threatening or is permanent and has serious health risks associated with it, then damn straight you should be held accountable.

Nothing Human Is Alien

13th September 2011, 15:28

In today's news:

"About 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases, U.S. health officials said on Tuesday.

"Black women had the highest rate of infection at 48 percent and women were nearly twice likely as men to be infected, according to an analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.....

"About 21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men, while 39 percent of blacks were infected compared to about 12 percent for whites, the CDC said.....

"The CDC estimates that more than 80 percent of people with genital herpes do not know they are infected.

"'The message is herpes is quite common. The symptoms can be often very innocuous,' Dr. John Douglas of the CDC said in a teleconference....."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/09/ps-herpes-usa-idUSN0923528620100309

LuÃs Henrique

13th September 2011, 15:59

ok..so somebody KNOWINGLY infects somebody with a life long sickness.

What do you suggest how such things should be handled?

I think monetary reparations would be a better option than criminal conviction. Unless, of course, there was evidence that the infection was purposeful.

Luís Henrique

bcbm

15th September 2011, 17:56

Yes...as I said men have a 4% and women an 8% chance to be infected

if they know they have had cold sores in the past but are not currently having an outbreak and kiss a child who then later develops a cold sore because of this

should they be prosecuted?

Those numbers are NOT for sex with an infected person yes they are.

Sex with an infected person caries an infection rate of 40-60% depending on, amongst others the sex of the person who in uninfected.no, this is flat out wrong.

Hepatitis vaccination are for hepatitis A and sometimes B. Both require multiple vaccinations...and both require a redo in 10 years.hepatitis b vaccination doesn't require a redo after 10 years and is generally accepted to be an indefinite immunity in most cases. with a full course the hepatisis a vaccine is estimated to provide protection for 21-27 years.

They both are under 90% certain. Meaning that 10% of people vaccinated may still be infected.hep a vaccine is effective in 95% of cases, hep b initial in 85-90% with multiple stages of further options to produce the desired antibody level.

And as Syphillis is asymptomatic in most cases, especially involving women, that early identification system does not work.regular testing will detect syphillis without symptoms.

Placing a greater burden on women.if you are sexually active you should get tested regularly, regardless of sex.

Its about 25% of the known anti-biotics in the treatment which are either renedered ineffective or to which a strain is completely immune. Thats actually quite a lot. The infection with a complete immune strain is indeed rarer but noteworthy enough because it has developed so rapidly.its a developing trend that needs to be watched, i agree. i don't think it requires prison though.

black magick hustla

15th September 2011, 21:01

hindsight: anarchist that supports the state to meddle in people's lives, because otherwise "people would lynch each other" lol

fuck the state and fuck the courthouses and the cops and the prisons, some people are to myopic beyond moving away of a dumb legalistic argument (he did this therefore he deserves this blahblahblah", but i am communist as fuck

black_tar_heroin

15th September 2011, 21:58

hindsight: anarchist that supports the state to meddle in people's lives, because otherwise "people would lynch each other" lolI know! Like, who the fuck am I to call myself a communist 'cos I rang the police after being sexually assaulted?! How dare I authorize the state to meddle in the life of rapists and thugs. To be bona fide "communist as fuck" (u so cool!!!) I should have rang the anarchy police, so silly and myopic of me.

Get fucked. :rolleyes:

black magick hustla

15th September 2011, 22:42

I know! Like, who the fuck am I to call myself a communist 'cos I rang the police after being sexually assaulted?! How dare I authorize the state to meddle in the life of rapists and thugs. To be bona fide "communist as fuck" (u so cool!!!) I should have rang the anarchy police, so silly and myopic of me.

Get fucked. :rolleyes:

you get fucked. anyway, as always missing the point. if i was in a prison and my life was threatened i would probably nag the prison guard, the problem though is that i am in a prison and there are prison guards in the first place.

black_tar_heroin

15th September 2011, 23:33

you get fucked. anyway, as always missing the point. if i was in a prison and my life was threatened i would probably nag the prison guard, the problem though is that i am in a prison and there are prison guards in the first place.that's deep

did you think that up before or after having a hit on the crack pipe? :blushing:

black magick hustla

15th September 2011, 23:35

that's deep

did you think that up before or after having a hit on the crack pipe? :blushing:

hello. also crack probably gets you really tweaky not "deep"

black_tar_heroin

15th September 2011, 23:37

I never did nothin.

PhoenixAsh

16th September 2011, 03:06

should they be prosecuted? yes they are. no, this is flat out wrong.

No...the numbers you have given are the numbers given for unprotected sex in the general population recalculated for chance of infection per sexual encounter.

So yes...you are flat out wrong.

hepatitis b vaccination doesn't require a redo after 10 years and is generally accepted to be an indefinite immunity in most cases. with a full course the hepatisis a vaccine is estimated to provide protection for 21-27 years.

http://www.hepatitis.nl/beroepsgroep/richtlijnen/DU357_1-Leidraad-Hepatitis-B-vaccinatie-bij-beroepsgebonden-risico.aspx

That is a document which is used as a guideline regulation for professions which requie hepatits vaccin. It states quite clearly redo's are necessary.

Travel injections for hepatitus need to be redone after 10 years.

http://www.vaccinatiesopreis.nl/hepatitis-a-vaccinatie/
Here is a travel guide which explicitly states:

Hep a vac. effective for 1 year. Another for 3 years and you require at least one redo to get 25 years of protection. Which you mentioned. Which is just for hep A...just to be clear.

hep a vaccine is effective in 95% of cases, hep b initial in 85-90% with multiple stages of further options to produce the desired antibody level.

So 5 out of every 100 people still get infected.

And in the other 15 out of a 100.

Thank you.

regular testing will detect syphillis without symptoms.

NOT unless you partner hides the fact he has Syphillis and never tells you...which was the scenario.

if you are sexually active you should get tested regularly, regardless of sex.

How many times a year do you get your blood test?

its a developing trend that needs to be watched, i agree. i don't think it requires prison though.

I think willfully infecting a person or hiding the fact that you have a disease and not insisting on safe sex requires punishment.

PhoenixAsh

16th September 2011, 03:10

bcbm

18th September 2011, 00:26

No...the numbers you have given are the numbers given for unprotected sex in the general population recalculated for chance of infection per sexual encounter.

So yes...you are flat out wrong.

If all you do is avoid having sex during a genital herpes outbreak there is a four percent risk of transmitting the virus to an uninfected partner.
If you avoid having sex during an outbreak AND use a condom then the risk is reduced to two percent.
If you avoid having sex during an outbreak, regularly use condoms AND use the anti-viral drug, Valtrex then you further reduce the risk to one percent.

http://www.livingwithgenitalherpes.org/genital-herpes-transmission.html

For a woman with HSV-2 genital herpes, the chance of spreading the virus to a man if they abstain from having sex during outbreaks is approximately 3% in a year. This is without the use of condoms or suppressive drugs which would reduce this risk even further.
For a man with HSV-2 genital herpes, the chance of passing the virus onto a female partner if they abstain from sex during outbreaks is close to 8% in a year.[1] (http://herpes-coldsores.com/herpes_prevention_tips.htm#ref1)
This is still only a very small chance which could be reduced by a further 40% or more with the use of condoms, a suppressive therapy (http://herpes-coldsores.com/compare-herpes-drugs.htm) or antiviral herbs (http://herpes-coldsores.com/herpes_symptoms.htm).http://herpes-coldsores.com/herpes_prevention_tips.htm#herpes_relationship

Let's say you have an infected male and an uninfected female. If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don't use condoms regularly, and don't take antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 10% per year. But if you add condoms, it reduces transmission by about 50%, if he takes Valtrex 500 mg once a day, he can reduce transmission also by about 50%. So you can see that the numbers get very low! If it is a woman infected with HSV 2 having sex with an uninfected male, given the circumstances listed above again, then the transmission rate is about 4% prior to the interventions of condoms and Valtrex.http://www.healthassist.net/conditions/herpes.shtml#3

etc.

http://www.hepatitis.nl/beroepsgroep/richtlijnen/DU357_1-Leidraad-Hepatitis-B-vaccinatie-bij-beroepsgebonden-risico.aspx

That is a document which is used as a guideline regulation for professions which requie hepatits vaccin. It states quite clearly redo's are necessary.

Travel injections for hepatitus need to be redone after 10 years.

http://www.vaccinatiesopreis.nl/hepatitis-a-vaccinatie/
Here is a travel guide which explicitly states:

Hep a vac. effective for 1 year. Another for 3 years and you require at least one redo to get 25 years of protection. Which you mentioned. Which is just for hep A...just to be clear.
A recent review by an expert panel, which evaluated the projected duration of immunity from vaccination, concluded that protective levels of antibody to HAV could be present for at least 25 years in adults and at least 14–20 years in children. http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HAV/HAVfaq.htm#B3

So 5 out of every 100 people still get infected.

And in the other 15 out of a 100.

Thank you.10-15 out of 100 is they don't pursue further options to build antibodies.

NOT unless you partner hides the fact he has Syphillis and never tells you...which was the scenario.get tested anyway.

How many times a year do you get your blood test?every 4 months.

I think willfully infecting a person or hiding the fact that you have a disease and not insisting on safe sex requires punishment.yes you have made that clear

PhoenixAsh

20th September 2011, 07:13

http://www.livingwithgenitalherpes.org/genital-herpes-transmission.html

http://herpes-coldsores.com/herpes_prevention_tips.htm#herpes_relationship

http://www.healthassist.net/conditions/herpes.shtml#3

etc.

http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HAV/HAVfaq.htm#B3

I was disputing the chance of infection during outbreak....which may or may not be noticeable by the way. Which is 50-60%. I was not disputing your restrictionary numbers.

10-15 out of 100 is they don't pursue further options to build antibodies.

And most do not.

get tested anyway.

I agree that getting tested is a wise move before you start a relationship.

But there are several side notes:

This places a heavy burden on women. Since they have about 50% more chance to catch an STD than men on average.

The need to be tested may be there, but not when you have a stable relationship or are misled to believe that you have a stable relationship...not to mention...that you can never actually see your partners test results and still have to rely on him or her telling the truth. And in some cases the test is purely for knowlegde facts since nothing can be done about the disease you get. As in the case of the OP...where the woman actually discovered the disease after getting tested...or in the case of HIV. Not to mention the various other diseases which all have a % chance of not being curable.

So the burden to safeguard against malicious intent or malicious dealings is placed completely on the victim. Which is in my opinion counter-logical.

We all accept that we have to get mutual consent before engaging in sexual activity. I think that should be informed consent and I do not see how this is any different. In my opinion it is a violation of the other person by willingly and knowingly putting them in a health risk.

So this is not the sole answer to the persisting and growing problem. And some form of culpability should be placed on those who actively lie and hide the fact that they have an STD and do not even insist on safe sex. Now the argument of fear is no excuse since you do not need to tell them what you have or that you have something even...as long as you insist on safe sex.

If that is absent the victim should have a form of recourse to get vindication. Wether that is jail time or a fine or some form of communal service is irrelevant for me...as long as the possibility exists. I just do not think these issues can always be solved outside some third party intervention as is being beautifully illustrated by OP in which the guy lied for about 2 years after she discovered she was infected.

every 4 months.

Good...so I take it you get full blood works done then?

yes you have made that clear

bcbm

21st September 2011, 17:41

I was disputing the chance of infection during outbreak....which may or may not be noticeable by the way. Which is 50-60%. I was not disputing your restrictionary numbers.

having sex with someone with herpes doesn't mean you immediately get herpes.

The infection rate of herpes during unprotected sexual intercourse is on avarage about 50% per unprotected episode with an infected partner...it is higher for women who have an upward of 60% chance.

So the chances are huge somebody is going to get it.

you could have made that a little more clear. you never once mentioned 'during an outbreak' until now

And most do not. cite?

I agree that getting tested is a wise move before you start a relationship.

But there are several side notes:

This places a heavy burden on women. Since they have about 50% more chance to catch an STD than men on average. if you are sexually active you should get tested regardless of sex.

So this is not the sole answer to the persisting and growing problem. And some form of culpability should be placed on those who actively lie and hide the fact that they have an STD and do not even insist on safe sex. Now the argument of fear is no excuse since you do not need to tell them what you have or that you have something even...as long as you insist on safe sex.

If that is absent the victim should have a form of recourse to get vindication. Wether that is jail time or a fine or some form of communal service is irrelevant for me...as long as the possibility exists. if you simply don't get tested there is no need to fear

I just do not think these issues can always be solved outside some third party intervention as is being beautifully illustrated by OP in which the guy lied for about 2 years after she discovered she was infected.what was solved?

Good...so I take it you get full blood works done then?yes

PhoenixAsh

21st September 2011, 23:55

you could have made that a little more clear. you never once mentioned 'during an outbreak' until now

You are right on that. Sorry.

if you are sexually active you should get tested regardless of sex.

And what does this solve exactly?

You still have medical costs to solve the problem. All of which have side effects which you are now exposed to .

You still disregard that "detection" does not equal "no harm"./ Since there is always a % chance the disease is not only asymptomatic, does not show up on a test, or simply causes secondary effects or triggers preexisting medical conditions.

You also forget that some diseases while dormant do not show up on tests...makng the time frame between tests of ultimate importance which means that a disease can wreak havoc if the timing is wrong.

Also as OP shows...there are several diseases that do not go away and are untreatable. Which you now know you have...but still can't do anything about.

Regular testing only gives you a diagnosis. It does not solve the problem nor does it prevent anything from happening to you in the first place. ergo it is not an answer to the problem of willingly and knowingly being infected by your partner.

if you simply don't get tested there is no need to fear

Yeah...that doesn't answer what I said at all.

what was solved?

What do you mean?

yes

Then you are a very lucky guy that you are able to spend the time and money to get screened completely. Since most STD tests focus on the most likely diseases and extensive tests usually cost money...not to mention time. Two or three weeks for full scan. Which requires two partial days off from work.

bcbm

24th September 2011, 21:51

And what does this solve exactly?

You still have medical costs to solve the problem. All of which have side effects which you are now exposed to .

You still disregard that "detection" does not equal "no harm"./ Since there is always a % chance the disease is not only asymptomatic, does not show up on a test, or simply causes secondary effects or triggers preexisting medical conditions.

You also forget that some diseases while dormant do not show up on tests...makng the time frame between tests of ultimate importance which means that a disease can wreak havoc if the timing is wrong.

Also as OP shows...there are several diseases that do not go away and are untreatable. Which you now know you have...but still can't do anything about.

Regular testing only gives you a diagnosis. It does not solve the problem nor does it prevent anything from happening to you in the first place. ergo it is not an answer to the problem of willingly and knowingly being infected by your partner.

by getting tested regularly you can discover any problems and seek whatever treatment is available. combined with preventative measures including vaccinations and condoms, dental dams, etc you'll be ensuring as much safety as possible in your sexual life.

Yeah...that doesn't answer what I said at all.

i don't think the state belongs in peoples bedrooms but if it does there is a very simply workaround that is arguably more harmful than the problem its trying to fix.

What do you mean?

exactly what i said. this guy goes to jail for 14 months. what is solved?

Then you are a very lucky guy that you are able to spend the time and money to get screened completely. Since most STD tests focus on the most likely diseases and extensive tests usually cost money...not to mention time. Two or three weeks for full scan. Which requires two partial days off from work.

you can get results from a full sti screen in about 2-3 days. a week at most. in the us there are a number of places that offer free testing, especially for women and if you have insurance regular screening is generally covered. giving urine samples and having bloodwork done takes an hour, two tops.

PhoenixAsh

25th September 2011, 17:40

by getting tested regularly you can discover any problems and seek whatever treatment is available. combined with preventative measures including vaccinations and condoms, dental dams, etc you'll be ensuring as much safety as possible in your sexual life.

I do not deny that this is true. But there is the issue with the fact that the responsibility is placed on the victim when one of the partners lies about having an STD and knowingly puts another person in danger.

Like I have argued...the issue is not merely detecting the STD. The issue is that a person is knowingly placed in direct harm and their informed consent is taken away.

This opens up not only the fact that a person now has to deal with the STD itself...but it also has several aggravating circumstances. Like the chance that the STD will affect prior medical problems negatively, maybe cause havoc (since there is always a chance the STD itself is wreaking havoc before medicatyion can be administered), the person helps the spreading of disease and the immunisation of that disease against medication, the cost of having to seek medical treatment both financially and in time etc. etc.

And that is besides the fact that som of these diseases can not be cured or treated and will last a life time putting the person in considerable inconvenience and pain....or even in threat of having to deal with a potentially leathal disease like HIV or cancer.

So no...I do not agree with yoru assesment that regular checks will prevent anything or are a solution. They deflect the malicious behaviour of the one doing and causing this upon the victim and make the victim solely responsible for something which has far reaching effects even beyong the immediate induvidual.

i don't think the state belongs in peoples bedrooms but if it does there is a very simply workaround that is arguably more harmful than the problem its trying to fix.

Well...this is not entirely true. We do want the state (or whatever official or semi official body that offers a course for one or two of the partners in the case...be that in post or pre revolutionary society) in our bedrooms. We argue for the abolition of legalisation of marital rape, domestic abuse of both sexes and several other factors like childcare, paternity and maternity issues and even gender roles. So the argument you make I share in sentiment but it is not entirely covering the issue.

In my opinion the "state or society" does not belong in our bedrooms in most issues on its own accord. But it does belong there when one of the two partners wishes it to get involved. In cases in which one partner puts another partner in harmsway (and I do consider knowingly infecting a person with an STD a case which can be seen as assault). There needs to be a higher body (wether this is state, councils or adhoc commissions) to which somebody can turn to restitution or help.

The work arounds you mention, which may be preferable as a matter of personal opinion, are not always there. In this case there was no work around because the guy flatout denied for two years.

exactly what i said. this guy goes to jail for 14 months. what is solved?

Ah ok...in that respect. I am not concerned with the hight of the sentence....in other words my arument is not that this guy deserves 14 months or less or more. What I am concerned with is the fact that it is a culpable offence to knowingly infect somebody and/or taking away their informed consent on health related issues and knowingly help spread diseases which pose a great problem for society as a whole.

For all I care the guy was convicted with a probationary sentence...but the conviction of the act itself is what I agree with.

That solves the issue of retribution. It solves the issue of people not giving a shit about the other persons safety...in other words...there is an huge signal send: this is not OK. It solves the issue of restitution. It solves the issue of recourse. It solves the issue of sex inequality and protection of women who are far, far more likely to become victims in such cases than men by now providing a precedent on which women (and incidentally also men) can now have another extra venue of seeking recourse and protection. And it clearly establishes who has what responsibility...in other words...it is not your own responsibility to protect yourself from malicious behaviour.

you can get results from a full sti screen in about 2-3 days. a week at most.

Well that is very cool. Here it is a week at best.

in the us there are a number of places that offer free testing, especially for women and if you have insurance regular screening is generally covered. giving urine samples and having bloodwork done takes an hour, two tops.

That still requires you to take a day or half-day off of work. In todays society that is a lot. Cost of travel. Cost of potential medication. Not to mention the fact that it still only gives you a diagnosis and that actual treatment may require more. And as I said...regular testing/screening at four month intervals may leave you with a disease which is not caught for 8 months....and the ill effects it has on your body in the meantime. Or with fast working STDs or diseases which will affect you negatively within the timeframe of four months causing you to get sick in the meantime and lose time and health.

So yes...I agree that regular testing is a good idea. But it does not solve the issue of responsibility and culpability. Nor does it prevent you being infected. It only offers a diagnosis. Sure...that is always usefull...but in itself it does nothing beyond that.