HIV criminalization

[BootmanLA]

35 minutes ago, Shotsfired said:

They raped him according to law. 16 is not old enough to consent in the USA.

You might be surprised to learn that there is no single age of consent for the USA. This is a matter for each state to determine on its own, and some do in fact have 16 (or less) as the legal age.

That said, in Florida, the state in question, the age is indeed 18.

And state age of consent laws only apply within the state. Transporting someone under 18 across state lines or enticing them to cross themselves, for a sexual purpose, is a federal crime no matter what the age of consent is in either state.

[Shotsfired]

58 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

You might be surprised to learn that there is no single age of consent for the USA. This is a matter for each state to determine on its own, and some do in fact have 16 (or less) as the legal age.

That said, in Florida, the state in question, the age is indeed 18.

And state age of consent laws only apply within the state. Transporting someone under 18 across state lines or enticing them to cross themselves, for a sexual purpose, is a federal crime no matter what the age of consent is in either state.

That is great info. Thank you 

[descartes70817]

On 3/6/2013 at 7:53 PM, fillmyholeftl said:

It's ILLEGAL in the State of Florida to NOT DISCLOSE your status. The "other person" (minor or not) does not even need to be infected for you to be prosecuted for non-disclosure.

GE A TATTOO, its easier !

Ditto for Louisiana - any potential partner must be told even if you plan to use safe sex

[descartes70817]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

You might be surprised to learn that there is no single age of consent for the USA. This is a matter for each state to determine on its own, and some do in fact have 16 (or less) as the legal age.

That said, in Florida, the state in question, the age is indeed 18.

And state age of consent laws only apply within the state. Transporting someone under 18 across state lines or enticing them to cross themselves, for a sexual purpose, is a federal crime no matter what the age of consent is in either state.

I always got confused with British consent laws, although they've finally made the law the same for everyone. The age of consent is 16 for everyone now, but when I was a teen the age of consent for gay sex was 21 and in the Armed Forces homosexuality was a criminal offense - not just gay sex acts, simply admitting that you're gay. Also any kind of anal sex between a man and a woman was also a criminal offense. Thankfully they've abolished that law. 

To the best of my recollection the age of consent throughout Europe in the 70s was as varied as it is from state to state.

[Guest]

On 5/21/2013 at 8:57 PM, wood said:

Bingo.

Its full disclosure or no go, thats the law, and its in place for a reason. There are plenty of people to have sex with, a person doesnt have to deliberately have risky sex with someone who doesnt want it.

On 11/15/2019 at 1:15 PM, Guest hungandmean said:

In my personal opinion we all have a responsibility to own the kind of sex we are having. We cannot go to a bath house, Grindr, where ever, ask "Are you neg?" and take a bunch of raw loads and rail against the universe if we end up positive. We own the kind of sex, and risk, we are having. We do not live in a time where we are unaware that HIV is a risk,

And there are worse things than HIV out there - 

Although there is a cure for Hep C - it is expensive, and the treatments for it do not work for everyone. It's come a long way, but without a cure it will kill you - where as HIV will not.

HIV should be decriminalized for people who are able to prove they are undetectable.

I also, however, believe that people who engage in explicitly risky sex and do not disclose that should potentially be criminalized. A friend of mine once told me if he never got a STI test then he would always be clean and neg. He was also the biggest slut i've ever known. There is a level of negligence there that should be penalized. It should be weighed against the fact that we all have a personality responsibility to ensure our safety - but at the same time he was absolutely lying to people about his status.

Just my two cents. 

 

On the one hand I would get why there was a legal requirement to disclose if someone has a detectable viral load and perhaps even forbidding having unprotected / unsafe / bareback sex in all cases.
But then there's the fact that not everyone has been tested or the last HIV-test could have been taken during the time when HIV is in the body, but not yet detectable. By shifting the full responsibility to someone how has tested Poz it actually has the strange effect that one is being punished for being sensible and (regularly) getting tested.

I think the effect of laws and not just the principle should be considered when talking about if laws makes sense. Although when considering principle a law that creates two different rulebooks, one for neg people and one for poz, to me seems unjust. Something about criminalizing HIV just doesn't feel right. It also seems superfluous to me as endangering people might and harming people is certainly a criminal offence in most jurisdictions.

Just another two cents about this, from this side of the Atlantic Pond.

 

There might have been a bit of too much bashing of the (then) 16 year old and I was glad to see that has been pointed out already. Does anybody know if he remained healthy despite the unsafe sexual encounter and how the courts ruled about the exposure?