NationStates Jolt Archive

So a huge client of ours who shall remain nameless sent us a worm. I had to get on the phone with two other clients to day and ask, "So, have you been to the doctor lately to get yourself checked out?" Luckily teh worm was not network aware and only moved around on shuttle drives, but man - that was a wierd phonecall to make. :eek: Turns out we didn't give it to them.

So a huge client of ours who shall remain nameless sent us a worm. I had to get on the phone with two other clients to day and ask, "So, have you been to the doctor lately to get yourself checked out?" Luckily teh worm was not network aware and only moved around on shuttle drives, but man - that was a wierd phonecall to make. :eek: Turns out we didn't give it to them.

... our network was infected... by a doctor. he found this nice neato program and brought it from home then saved it on the server.

oh, How I enjoyed slapping his wrist! :p

Ummmm....

Honey? You know I love you right?

Well, remember when me and the boys went to Mexico last month?

Did I tell you I love you? I did? Good...

Umm, well there was this night and we got really drunk and I slipped and my penis fell into a prostitute...

I told you I love you, right?

Well, teh doctor says those bumps you have...

Ummmm....

Honey? You know I love you right?

Well, remember when me and the boys went to Mexico last month?

Did I tell you I love you? I did? Good...

Umm, well there was this night and we got really drunk and I slipped and my penis fell into a prostitute...

I told you I love you, right?

Well, teh doctor says those bumps you have...

you win!

Not a girlfriend and not herpes, no.

Naw, then they wouldn't give me sex.

Well, I've never had to make that kind of call to a girlfriend but I imagine it feels very much like the call I have to make to Disney today. Luckily they're clean and so is Vancouver.


Phew....

tbh I once got a call from a friend who found out I had slept with someone he had slept with and he told me that she found out she had HPV. I had just started dating a girl who I hand't yet slept with and I explained that to her. Before we ever did anything we both went and got checked for STDs together. Both clean bills of health. Yay.

So a huge client of ours who shall remain nameless sent us a worm. I had to get on the phone with two other clients to day and ask, "So, have you been to the doctor lately to get yourself checked out?" Luckily teh worm was not network aware and only moved around on shuttle drives, but man - that was a wierd phonecall to make. :eek: Turns out we didn't give it to them.

I've had surgery for testicular torsion before, but I'm too young to get those. (I think)

i had to tell everyone i'd had physical contact with once that i'd caught scabies. the worst of it was, the girl i cought it off wouldn't admit it so the outbreak was officially my fault. grrrrr.

No, seeing as how I've never played Candyland. ;)

Errr..... condoms?

Hello people.

Or is that just for other people?

Errr..... condoms?

Hello people.

Or is that just for other people?

The Anti-Simetic Nazi pope disaproves of those.

Not a girlfriend and not herpes, no.

Obviously a boyfriend, but what instead of herpes?

The Anti-Simetic Nazi pope disaproves of those.

What even the banana flavoured ones?? :eek:

Errr..... condoms?

Hello people.

Or is that just for other people?

Condoms wouldn't have helped in my case. Our corporate antivirus did, but we didn't have it checking shuttle drives and we had already sent out three before we got the alerts.

Naw, then they wouldn't give me sex.

Winner of thread, it would seem.

What a stupid opening post.

To the question in the title, yes I have. I received the 'gift' of herpes about three years ago (though for all I know it could have been latent for 10 years prior to that), and I absolutely disclose. I have no respect for someone that would not, and let's not even mention that it's a criminal offense NOT to disclose. So far it has not cramped my sex life in the slightest.

Errr..... condoms?

Hello people.

Or is that just for other people?

Condoms are not nearly as effective in preventing the spread of herpes as they are in preventing other STIs.

Obviously a boyfriend, but what instead of herpes?

None of your beeswax.

None of your beeswax.

Well and it was a dumb question to beging with. Clearly what you were disclosing is that you had 'the gay'.

Well and it was a dumb question to beging with. Clearly what you were disclosing is that you had 'the gay'.

Chronic and terminal.

I hate giving bad news, so no I would never tell a girlfriend that I'm giving her herpes. I figure if she wants the cock, she wants everything that comes with it too. Otherwise she'd ask for a special order, no? Just like drive-through.

Here's something that helps with the non-entendre thread topic.

http://www.neuroland.com/id/herpes_ence.htm

And, of course ... even Koi fish get herpes.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/VM113

Sometimes worse than others.

I hate giving bad news, so no I would never tell a girlfriend that I'm giving her herpes. I figure if she wants the cock, she wants everything that comes with it too. Otherwise she'd ask for a special order, no? Just like drive-through.
Thus spake a bitter man.

I'd like a special order thanks.

Thus spake a bitter man.

I'd like a special order thanks.

I'm not bitter. I'm sweet n sour.

What a stupid opening post.

To the question in the title, yes I have. I received the 'gift' of herpes about three years ago (though for all I know it could have been latent for 10 years prior to that), and I absolutely disclose. I have no respect for someone that would not, and let's not even mention that it's a criminal offense NOT to disclose. So far it has not cramped my sex life in the slightest.

It's a criminal offense? Where do you live, Nazi Germany?

Here's something that helps with the non-entendre thread topic.

http://www.neuroland.com/id/herpes_ence.htm What are you trying to freak people the fuck out? Herpes encephalitis is extremely rare.

Herpes simplex I and II, however, are extremely common. Most people don't even know they have it.

I'm not bitter. I'm sweet n sour.

Then I'll take my pork loin without herpes thanks :P Wrap it up, I want it to go.

It's a criminal offense? Where do you live, Nazi Germany?

Actually it's illegal in many countries not to disclose an STI that one is aware of to a sexual partner.

Actually it's illegal in many countries not to disclose an STI that one is aware of to a sexual partner.

So if someone gives you the clap, you can report them to the police.

That all sounds a little Nazi germany to me.

It's a criminal offense? Where do you live, Nazi Germany?
Canada.

Do you live in the US? Then most likely it's a criminal offence where you live as well.

For us, it's under the sexual assault laws. Sexual assault is any non-consensual sexual act. If you would not have had sex with a person had you known they had an STI, then your consent was not informed, and therefore not valid. In fact, if you do not disclose that you have an STI, you are committing aggravated sexual assault, a very serious indictable offence, even if your partner never becomes infected.

Whether it's AIDS, or herpes, and you know about it, you HAVE to disclose. And frankly, I support that law, 100%.

Do you live in the US? Then most likely it's a criminal offence where you live as well.


Yes, and it isn't.

Yes, and it isn't.

Which state do you live in that it is okay to fuck someone knowing that you could be giving them a dangerous infection, without warning them beforehand?

Also note...you would most likely still be held liable in a civil suit.

Which state?

New York.

Also note...you would most likely still be held liable in a civil suit.

That's a wholly different thing.

Canada.

Do you live in the US? Then most likely it's a criminal offence where you live as well.

For us, it's under the sexual assault laws. Sexual assault is any non-consensual sexual act. If you would not have had sex with a person had you known they had an STI, then your consent was not informed, and therefore not valid. In fact, if you do not disclose that you have an STI, you are committing aggravated sexual assault, a very serious indictable offence, even if your partner never becomes infected.

Whether it's AIDS, or herpes, and you know about it, you HAVE to disclose. And frankly, I support that law, 100%.

That reminds me ...
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-17-2001-5446.asp

So if someone gives you the clap, you can report them to the police.

If they were aware that they had the clap before giving it to you - something that becomes apparent when they make an epidemiological trace at the CDC equivalent - then, yes.

That all sounds a little Nazi germany to me.

Only if accountability for purposefully inflicted bodily harm = Nazi Germany.

What are you trying to freak people the fuck out? Herpes encephalitis is extremely rare.Yes and no.
I tried to keep my sister from gettin' in a little too often by making wall-size posters of the pix in her "Understanding Human Sexuality" book from school ... no dice.
BTW - you know about Baudelaire, right? Catching moths and such ...


Herpes simplex I and II, however, are extremely common. Most people don't even know they have it.Yup.
And chicken pox is ....?
And shingles is ....?

Common is sort of an understatement.

And chicken pox is ....?
And shingles is ....?

Those are varicella zoster, not herpes simplex.

Those are varicella zoster, not herpes simplex.

Wow, on the same line even.

also known as human herpes virus 3 (HHV-3), one of the eight herpes viruses known to affect humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

When you say "not", you mean ...?
Nevermind. I know how graceful you are about such things. :rolleyes:

And, in case wiki isn't enough ...:
The virus that causes chickenpox is varicella-zoster, a member of the herpesvirus family. The same virus also causes herpes zoster (shingles) in adults.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001592.htm
Perhaps some form of authority there.

None of your beeswax.

Well and it was a dumb question to beging with. Clearly what you were disclosing is that you had 'the gay'.

Well, Fass says something like that, so my curiosity is piqued. Meh.

I had a beesting joke in mind but I suck at jokes so I'll leave it be.

If they were aware that they had the clap before giving it to you - something that becomes apparent when they make an epidemiological trace at the CDC equivalent - then, yes.



Only if accountability for purposefully inflicted bodily harm = Nazi Germany.

Where do you draw the line? What is an STI and what is not. Say I kiss someone and give them oral herpes, is that a crime &c.

And why should it just be sex? Shouldn't then any contagious person be held liable for spreading disease if they know they are infected and then expose themselves to the public unnecessarily.

It all strikes me as a little Victorian in our attitude towards sex.

That's a wholly different thing.

Yeah. Instead of jail, you'd get your ass sued off for battery (http://www.oshmanlaw.com/personal_injury/sexually-transmitted-diseases.html), fraud, negligence, or infliction of emotional distress.

You are correct that it is not a criminal offence in New York to fail to disclose. In some states however, it is a felony (http://www.thebody.com/content/art6936.html#New_York).

Wow, on the same line even.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

When you say "not", you mean ...?
Nevermind. I know how graceful you are about such things. :rolleyes:

Just because it's in the herpesviridae family doesn't not make it the same virus as herpes simplex - and it isn't the same virus at all, hence the different name herpes zoster/HHV3 (and not HHV1 or HHV2) just like the fact that whales and dolphins are both cetaceans doesn't make them the same animal.

Umm, well there was this night and we got really drunk and I slipped and my penis fell into a prostitute...

im glad im not the only one that this happens to. it happens a lot and when i try to explain myself they always just get pissed at me.

So if someone gives you the clap, you can report them to the police.

That all sounds a little Nazi germany to me.

So, you think that someone with HIV should be able to go around, exposing other people with no consequences? Without disclosing? Or is it just that you think 'the clap' isn't that serious?

Many 'minor' STIs, left untreated, can have very adverse affects on a person's health. HPV for one is incredibly common, and the number one cause of cervical cancer in women. Many women have no idea they are infected with this virus.

If you went and injected someone with HIV, you would be guilty of a serious assault. Why should sticking your dick in someone be any different? You haven't given them the information they need to properly consider the consequences and give you consent.

Oh, and nice Godwin.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001592.htm
Perhaps some form of authority there.

Herpes zoster != herpes simplex eruption. It is a varicella zoster eruption. I know that the names must confuse you - it's apparent they do, but don't feel bad about it, lots of people who don't know that much about viruses get confused by it - but varicella zoster/HHV3 != herpes simplex 1 and 2/HHV1/HHV2.

Just because it's in the herpesviridae family doesn't not make it the same virus as herpes simplex - and it isn't the same virus at all, hence the different name herpes zoster/HHV3 (and not HHV1 or HHV2) just like the fact that whales and dolphins are both cetaceans doesn't make them the same animal.

Still herpes, hence the SAME name herpes USED in its name.
I didn't say it was the same AS simplex of genital herpes ... in fact, i didn't say anything of the sort. I asked two queries.
And then, whaddya know, i provided some source material.

Perhaps you'll expand now on what the definition of "is" is.
I know that the names must confuse you - it's apparent they do
...and you can hose off with that attitude. Argue with the people who are in the business, not me.

Where do you draw the line? What is an STI and what is not. Say I kiss someone and give them oral herpes, is that a crime &c.

If you knew you had it and didn't let them know and you give it to them, then yes.

And why should it just be sex? Shouldn't then any contagious person be held liable for spreading disease if they know they are infected and then expose themselves to the public unnecessarily.

They are. In fact, that's what disease prevention laws are all about - it's done to people with tuberculosis, for instance, who don't follow the proper quarantine procedures. They can be isolated and forcibly treated. Infecting other people with a communicable disease that one is aware of and that one has not taken reasonable precautions against spreading is illegal in many countries, if not most.

It all strikes me as a little Victorian in our attitude towards sex.

Quite frankly, that you would be opposed to laws that punish people for purposefully infecting people with diseases strikes me as simply idiotic.

Wow, on the same line even.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

When you say "not", you mean ...?
Nevermind. I know how graceful you are about such things. :rolleyes:

And, in case wiki isn't enough ...:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001592.htm
Perhaps some form of authority there.

Wow, how uninformed can you possibly be?

Herpes simplex I and II are sexually transmitted infections (http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm).

Herpes zoster may have 'herpes' in the name, but that only means that the viruses are related. You might actually want to read up a bit on this before you start lecturing people on it.

They are. In fact, that's what disease prevention laws are all about - it's done to people with tuberculosis, for instance, who don't follow the proper quarantine procedures. They can be isolated and forcibly treated. Infecting other people with a communicable disease that one is aware of and that one has not taken reasonable precautions against spreading is illegal in many countries, if not most.


I shall demand that the next person on the train who is sneezing and obviously infected with 'flu be arrested forthwith.

So, you think that someone with HIV should be able to go around, exposing other people with no consequences? Without disclosing? Or is it just that you think 'the clap' isn't that serious?

Many 'minor' STIs, left untreated, can have very adverse affects on a person's health. HPV for one is incredibly common, and the number one cause of cervical cancer in women. Many women have no idea they are infected with this virus.

If you went and injected someone with HIV, you would be guilty of a serious assault. Why should sticking your dick in someone be any different? You haven't given them the information they need to properly consider the consequences and give you consent.

Oh, and nice Godwin.

So you agree with me it's not illegal in NY then?

Still herpes, hence the SAME name herpes USED in its name.

It's not the same at all. In fact, people who are immune to the varicella zoster virus - i.e. have suffered chicken pox - are not immune to the herpes simplex virus. Just because "herpes zoster" has a name that contains "herpes" (which has to do with the herpetiform lesions and papules, and of course being a herpesviridae virus) doesn't make it the same disease/affliction as herpes simplex.

I didn't say it was the same AS simplex of genital herpes ... in fact, i didn't say anything of the sort. I asked two queries.
And then, whaddya know, i provided some source material.

So, the equivalent of what you did is going: "oh, that Chinese dolphin they claim is extinct isn't all that rare because look at all those whales over there"... well, why did you? Herpes simplex is not varicella zoster, so your bringing up shingles and chicken pox is completely irrelevant to the incidence and prevalence of herpes simplex, which is what Neesika was talking about.

...and you can hose off with that attitude. Argue with the people who are in the business, not me.

Oh, it's quite obvious you're not in the virology or dermatology business.

I shall demand that the next person on the train who is sneezing and obviously infected with 'flu be arrested forthwith.

Don't be ridiculous. This is naturally confined to communicable diseases that pose a peril to the general public - in fact, most governments have lists of diseases that it applies to - so don't try your feeble little "arguments" with me.

So you agree with me it's not illegal in NY then?

Agree with you? This isn't something you agree on or not. It is or it isn't, and it has nothing to do with how you or I feel about it.

It is not a criminal offence in New York, but you still can be held liable in a civil suit. Before you go crowing about that, remember...civil suits are about wrongdoing. It's still not 'okay'.

And I have to agree with Fass. The fact that you oppose a law that makes it mandatory to warn your sexual partners of your sexual infections...is absolutely idiotic.

Still herpes, hence the SAME name herpes USED in its name.
I didn't say it was the same AS simplex of genital herpes ... in fact, i didn't say anything of the sort. I asked two queries.
And then, whaddya know, i provided some source material.
What on earth are you even talking about? Because the discussion has been centred around sexually transmitted infections, just in case you missed it. Do you have a point in bringing up chicken pox and shingles, or did the word 'herpes' just inspire you to start listing off other viruses with 'herpes' in the name?

There is frankly enough misinformation about this extremely common STI without you adding to it for absolutely no reason.

Don't be ridiculous. This is naturally confined to communicable diseases that pose a peril to the general public - in fact, most governments have lists of diseases that it applies to - so don't try your feeble little "arguments" with me.

There is no such thing as people dying from 'flu now?

There is no such thing as people dying from 'flu now?

What do you care? You support being able to lie to your sexual partner, and expose them to STIs.

Take it up with your local centre for communicable diseases. In the meantime, be comforted that the next woman or man you sleep with doesn't have to tell you if they have AIDS.

No. No I haven't, but thanks for asking.

There is no such thing as people dying from 'flu now?

Actually, most people don't. And there are vaccines against the flu. In fact, if a flu virus evolves that poses a significant risk to the public - say something like SARS (not flu, but similar) - the laws will be adjusted to encompass it as well. Like they were to encompass SARS.
I've told you once, and this will be the last time I tell you: don't try these feeble, little "arguments" with me because I will not entertain them. It is not a "freedom issue" at all - it is a common sense issue. Diseases such as gonnorhea, syphilis, TBC, HIV, herpes simplex and so forth do pose a wide threat to the public and transmitting them on purpose - like having sex even though you know you're carrying HIV and failing to disclose that to your partner - is assault.

What do you care? You support being able to lie to your sexual partner, and expose them to STIs.

Take it up with your local centre for communicable diseases. In the meantime, be comforted that the next woman or man you sleep with doesn't have to tell you if they have AIDS.

I don't 'support' it. I just don't think it should be illegal.

I don't 'support' it. I just don't think it should be illegal.

And I just think that's idiotic.

And I just think that's idiotic.

Because you are from a country, where, for the most part the laws seem to work.

But sure, hand this power over to the US government, or the UK government for that matter, I'm sure it will work swimmingly.

Not to mention the utter impracticality of actually prosecuting them, or the inherent contradictions that will undoubtedly arise in trying to enforce them. (Not to mention the scope for using them to persecute minorities).

Because you are from a country, where, for the most part the laws seem to work.

But sure, hand this power over to the US government, or the UK government for that matter, I'm sure it will work swimmingly.

Not to mention the utter impracticality of actually prosecuting them, or the inherent contradictions that will undoubtedly arise in trying to enforce them. (Not to mention the scope for using them to persecute minorities).

So, show me some evidence of how, in the roughly 27 states in the US that make non-disclosure of an STI a criminal offence, it has failed so miserably, as you have predicted.

But sure, hand this power over to the US government, or the UK government for that matter, I'm sure it will work swimmingly.

The UK government has successfully prosecuted people for purposefully infecting people with HIV, for instance Mohammed Dica. The cases are rare because it is rare that people willingly infect other people, but when that happens there must be a way to stop them.

Not to mention the utter impracticality of actually prosecuting them, or the inherent contradictions that will undoubtedly arise in trying to enforce them. (Not to mention the scope for using them to persecute minorities).

It's not at all impractical.

Quite frankly, that you would be opposed to laws that punish people for purposefully infecting people with diseases strikes me as simply idiotic.

Or defensive.

The UK government has successfully prosecuted people for purposefully infecting people with HIV, for instance Mohammed Dica. The cases are rare because it is rare that people willingly infect other people, but when that happens there must be a way to stop them.

That case has nothing to do with whether or not having sex with someone while you know you are infected is a criminal act. You actually have to infect them. (And with a reckless mens rea).

It's not at all impractical.

Sure it is. As a matter of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would imagine that very often it would be exceptionally difficult to show who was exactly responsible for what.

Or defensive.

Yes. I'm out spreading TEH AIDS :rolleyes:.

That case has nothing to do with whether or not having sex with someone while you know you are infected is a criminal act. You actually have to infect them. (And with a reckless mens rea).

We are talking about infecting. No one mentioned just having sex.

Sure it is. As a matter of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would imagine that very often it would be exceptionally difficult to show who was exactly responsible for what.

Actually, not at all. The epidemiological data tends to be quite damning, as does serotyping.

We are talking about infecting. No one mentioned just having sex.

Actually it's illegal in many countries not to disclose an STI that one is aware of to a sexual partner.

NSG is confusing. Probably just as much my fault though. These things tend to wander. Anyway, it was the criminality of the non disclosure, not the intent to infect that bothered me.

Actually, not at all. The epidemiological data tends to be quite damning, as does serotyping.

Well, I'll defer to your medical brain. But there was some recent scare about 'super aids' in NY, and they couldn't track it down. Seemed silly to me.

Also, would that work for all cases? Is it not possibly in a group of recently infected people who had multiple sex partners it is impossible to point the finger at who infected whom?

Or defensive.

It certainly had me wondering.

It's not a nice thing, having someone all hot for you and having to say, "hey...you know, by the way, before anything happens...I'm have to tell you that I have 'insert STI'. I totally understand if you don't want to have sex". But you know what? That's what mature people do. They suck it up, and they are honest, and they let other people make informed choices about their sexual health.

(And with a reckless mens rea).

Sure it is. As a matter of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would imagine that very often it would be exceptionally difficult to show who was exactly responsible for what.

In Canada, having knowledge of your condition, and not disclosing to a sexual partner is reckless, by definition. That doesn't change if the person doesn't get the infection. The issue hinges on whether you disclosed or not in fact. If you didn't, then the consent you were given was obtained through fraud. UNLESS you can somehow prove that your partner would have had sex with you even if he or she knew of your condition.

In a civil case, an actual infection will go to the issue of damages.

Geesh, you dirty sinners ought to be glad you're not getting infected with ebola.

In Canada, having knowledge of your condition, and not disclosing to a sexual partner is reckless, by definition. That doesn't change if the person doesn't get the infection. The issue hinges on whether you disclosed or not in fact.

So it's actually a strict liability crime? Why bother with reckless then.

In a civil case, an actual infection will go to the issue of damages.

I won't bother to dignify that.

So it's actually a strict liability crime? Why bother with reckless then.
Absolutely not. Your fraud simply vitiates consent. What is sexual assault? It is sexual activity without consent. There is a mens rea and an actus reus, and a positive duty to get consent. Being reckless or wilfully blind to lack of consent is no defence, and you can not obtain consent by fraud. Whether you do that by pretending to be someone else, or by lying about your STI status, you having non-consensual sexual activity.

I won't bother to dignify that.

Sorry?

You touch someone without their consent, you commit a battery. If you obtain consent through fraud, the consent is vitiated, and you have committed a battery. Consent must be informed.

Civil remedies are about damages. If the battery did not result in an actual infection, then the damages are reduced. If, however, the unsuspecting partner is infected, then absolutely his or her damages will reflect that. So what exactly are you 'not dignifying' here?

Absolutely not. Your fraud simply vitiates consent. What is sexual assault? It is sexual activity without consent. There is a mens rea and an actus reus, and a positive duty to get consent. Being reckless or wilfully blind to lack of consent is no defence, and you can not obtain consent by fraud. Whether you do that by pretending to be someone else, or by lying about your STI status, you having non-consensual sexual activity.


Sorry?

You touch someone without their consent, you commit a battery. If you obtain consent through fraud, the consent is vitiated, and you have committed a battery. Consent must be informed.

Civil remedies are about damages. If the battery did not result in an actual infection, then the damages are reduced. If, however, the unsuspecting partner is infected, then absolutely his or her damages will reflect that. So what exactly are you 'not dignifying' here?

Okay, I see what you are saying. Under Canadian law failure to disclose STI status is fraud in the factum and therefore it results in sexual assault knowingly committed - which is still not reckless BTW - because consent is abrogated.

Can I further assume that there is not specific statute relating to this type of conduct, but rather it is a matter of interpretation of the definition of consent in respect of sex?

Also, from what you are saying the civil damages would become a matter of an intentional tort, which would change the calculus of the damages significantly.

Still, as a practical matter, if there is no transmission of the disease, I can't see how this would come up all that often.

(I'm actually honestly curious now, rather than just being a ****.)

Okay, I see what you are saying. Under Canadian law failure to disclose STI status is fraud in the factum and therefore it results in sexual assault knowingly committed - which is still not reckless BTW - because consent is abrogated. Yes, I have been referring specifically to the fraud...but in the context of sexual assault, one can be reckless or wilfully blind to the obtaining of consent. So, you could on one hand, claim to be STI free...that would be fraud. Or, it could be argued that not bringing it up at all is actually reckless. You would be wilfully blind if you suspected that bringing it up would cause consent to be withdrawn. It's been argued in various ways.


Can I further assume that there is not specific statute relating to this type of conduct, but rather it is a matter of interpretation of the definition of consent in respect of sex? In respect of sexual assault, yes.

Also, from what you are saying the civil damages would become a matter of an intentional tort, which would change the calculus of the damages significantly. It depends of course which tort you'd be addressing. Trespass to the person requires no damage, but you'd probably only get nominal damages without an infection. You could also be sued under negligence law. There are a number of different approaches, but the most common is battery. Regardless of the specific cause of action, damages would be assessed according to the specific factors; type of infection, possibility of treatment and so forth.

Still, as a practical matter, if there is no transmission of the disease, I can't see how this would come up all that often. Well, let's look specifically at herpes. Herpes is a sneaky bastard. You can become infected, and not have an initial outbreak...no indication at all that you have contracted the virus. Also, unless you are in the middle of an outbreak, regular STI testing will not detect the presence of the virus. There are some very expensive blood and DNA tests out there, but they are not always going to find the virus either.

So. Imagine you sleep with someone, then find out they have herpes. You have no way of knowing whether you actually have it or not...but you must assume you do. Herpes can be infectious even when you are asymptomatic. There is the stress and emotional strain of having an STI to deal with. For women it can be more problematic if she is pregnant or intends to become pregnant, as very severe complications can occur if the virus crosses the placenta, or if the baby is born during an outbreak, and comes into contact with the virus. Of course, there are ways to prevent these things, but the danger is still there.

All of this, all of this and quite possibly more, because someone obtained your consent by omitting to tell you they had an STI.

Not everyone is going to pursue this in the courts...but I can certainly understand why some would want to...and I believe they have a good reason to.

Now....one possible drawback to criminalising non-disclosure of STIs, here anyway. You can not be found criminally responsible if you do not know of your status. So, perhaps it could be argued that some people might not go get STI testing, so they would not have to know, and would have no duty to disclose.

However...I would not be at all suprised to find that someone could STILL be found negligent, possibly even criminally so, if they were reckless or willfully blind in not getting STI treatment. For example, if someone regularly injected drugs, or had unprotected sex, and just never got tested...or if it could be shown that they suspected they might have someone but refused to find out.

Nonetheless...there is also the issue in civil court of contributory negligence, and it would be interesting to see if the partner of such a person would be held partially responsible for having sex anyway, without demanding that person get tested. Who knows.

In any case, I am of the unfounded, totally unsourced, un backed-up or researched opinion that this would not be a huge issue (deliberately not getting tested).

It's not the same at all. In fact, people who are immune to the varicella zoster virus - i.e. have suffered chicken pox - are not immune to the herpes simplex virus. Just because "herpes zoster" has a name that contains "herpes" (which has to do with the herpetiform lesions and papules, and of course being a herpesviridae virus) doesn't make it the same disease/affliction as herpes simplex. As bolded, it's still in the herpes family, else why would they bother with the title? By your own description, which is actually somewhat gracious, it's a herperviridae virus. As i pointed out before, i'm not making *any* argument that chickenpox OR shingles was a sexually transmitted disease - since i pointed it out ONCE i'm not going to again. Perhaps you can see that i was being quite broad with examples of HERPES that are, yes, HERPES, that weren't even in the family of specifically the same disease or affliction as herpes simplex. That's about as much as needs to be said.



So, the equivalent of what you did is going: "oh, that Chinese dolphin they claim is extinct isn't all that rare because look at all those whales over there"... well, why did you? Herpes simplex is not varicella zoster, so your bringing up shingles and chicken pox is completely irrelevant to the incidence and prevalence of herpes simplex, which is what Neesika was talking about.
Again, you are whittling down your definitions now as to herpes simplex, for which again i'll point out both my prior post and everyone before, and the above line. As much as you want to think you have some kind of domination of the OP, i'll just repost that the title was obviously an entendre, and neither of you are doing anything except throwing a lot of labour into your own points regardless of what other posters are actually saying. The two of you want to talk exclusively about herpes simplex is fine, but that doesn't rule out all the other forms. Why do you think i mentioned the koi fish?


Oh, it's quite obvious you're not in the virology or dermatology business.A little too close to home for you is it? :p

Wow, how uninformed can you possibly be?
Save it. Read the response to Fass.


Herpes simplex I and II are sexually transmitted infections (http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm).
That's fine. Nonetheless, what i posted, for example, the KOI fish :rolleyes: is *still* herpes. Am i suggesting that someone's gonna fuck a fish and get herpes simplex I or II? :rolleyes:
You folks have gone wayyyyy off track with it. Although you obviously want to keep *your* topic line to the simplex I and II types, i don't really care. You've already taken the entendre to replace the OP anyway so there's no real purity of intent here.


Herpes zoster may have 'herpes' in the name, but that only means that the viruses are related. You might actually want to read up a bit on this before you start lecturing people on it.I don't think i'm concerned about who thinks who is being lectured about what here.

Again, you are whittling down your definitions now as to herpes simplex, for which again i'll point out both my prior post and everyone before, and the above line. As much as you want to think you have some kind of domination of the OP, i'll just repost that the title was obviously an entendre, and neither of you are doing anything except throwing a lot of labour into your own points regardless of what other posters are actually saying.

You again? Do you have a point? 'Other' posters are debating an issue...and you are running in every now and again going "na na na Fass, I said herpes, and herpes is herpes, and even though you're talking about a specific kind, I want you to admit I'm right about this". Right about what? What are you going on about?

As I said before...there is enough misinformation about herpes without you posting links about herpes encephalitis, and herpes zoster, and making absolutely no further comment, as though somehow your point is so clear it needs not actually be stated.

Save it. Read the response to Fass. Yeah, I did. And your bizarre rambling is as incoherent as ever.

Here's something that helps with the non-entendre thread topic.

http://www.neuroland.com/id/herpes_ence.htm

And, of course ... even Koi fish get herpes.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/VM113

Sometimes worse than others.


Here is your original 'non-entendre thread topic' post.

Again. What is your point?

Yes, I have been referring specifically to the fraud...but in the context of sexual assault, one can be reckless or wilfully blind to the obtaining of consent. So, you could on one hand, claim to be STI free...that would be fraud. Or, it could be argued that not bringing it up at all is actually reckless. You would be wilfully blind if you suspected that bringing it up would cause consent to be withdrawn. It's been argued in various ways.

Ah, I see. I think you'll find in the US that intentionally remaining silent about material facts -when ceteris paribus there is a duty to disclose - is considered pretty much the same as denying them.

Thanks for your detailed answer though about the rest.

Now I <3 U. :fluffle:

What on earth are you even talking about? Because the discussion has been centred around sexually transmitted infections, just in case you missed it.
...... and here is the OP, in case you missed it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12954947&postcount=1

Do you have a point in bringing up chicken pox and shingles, or did the word 'herpes' just inspire you to start listing off other viruses with 'herpes' in the name?Actually i did have some of a point, but it doesn't seem particularly important in contrast to the nature the thread turned.
I suppose it could be somewhat predictable that the conversation would become exclusive, which i personally see as unfortunate (not just for my own selfish purposes), but i wasn't in any hurry to make it so.
Ever more unfortunate that it's a topic of discussion that people want to take sides on morality about, for whatever my opinion is worth. :(

There is frankly enough misinformation about this extremely common STI without you adding to it for absolutely no reason.Well, this wouldn't be an instance of "no reason". Honestly, the first thing i thought of from the OP was that thing about the fish, which i'm really not that concerned about people being confused about. Encephalitis maybe, though as you pointed out, those are extreme circumstances. I don't have enough personal investment in the topic itself other than what i already submitted, and for every extremely personal issue that has already come up for posters here, including yourself, i offer condolences, for what they're worth.

What a stupid opening post.

To the question in the title, yes I have. I received the 'gift' of herpes about three years ago (though for all I know it could have been latent for 10 years prior to that), and I absolutely disclose. I have no respect for someone that would not, and let's not even mention that it's a criminal offense NOT to disclose. So far it has not cramped my sex life in the slightest.

Settel down there, tiger. It doesn't all have to be serious all of the time. try to have some fun! :)

You again? Do you have a point? 'Other' posters are debating an issue...and you are running in every now and again going "na na na Fass, I said herpes, and herpes is herpes, and even though you're talking about a specific kind, I want you to admit I'm right about this". Right about what? What are you going on about?

As I said before...there is enough misinformation about herpes without you posting links about herpes encephalitis, and herpes zoster, and making absolutely no further comment, as though somehow your point is so clear it needs not actually be stated.Well, for one, i said to read my reply to him because both of you seem give a type of impression that it's your thread or something.

to clarify:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12956225&postcount=87

Yeah, I did. And your bizarre rambling is as incoherent as ever.

Why do you keep asking then?
:rolleyes:

Settel down there, tiger. It doesn't all have to be serious all of the time. try to have some fun! :)

Well, we could joke about viruses...which would have been amusing for...what...four or five posts? (and feel free to continue, it wouldn't be the first time a thread had many strands within it) Or...we could jump into the literal and discuss something with a bit of depth.

I find the latter to be more fun, frankly, but I'm a freak like that.

Why do you keep asking then?
:rolleyes:

In the (clearly foolish) hope that you might try to clarify yourself, rather than attempting to engage in a pissing contest with someone who could care less. One of the two of you made an actual point. Generally in that situation, the one who didn't, would attempt to. Yet you haven't bothered.

So. Guess we're done here.

Now....one possible drawback to criminalising non-disclosure of STIs, here anyway. You can not be found criminally responsible if you do not know of your status. So, perhaps it could be argued that some people might not go get STI testing, so they would not have to know, and would have no duty to disclose.


That was one of the reasons for NY not going down this route. Also, at the time it was first proposed was the scare that upstate would use it as a shitty stick to bash the gays.

In the (clearly foolish) hope that you might try to clarify yourself, rather than attempting to engage in a pissing contest with someone who could care less. One of the two of you made an actual point. Generally in that situation, the one who didn't, would attempt to. Yet you haven't bothered.

So. Guess we're done here.

So ..... Fass makes a point that you agree with. Therefore, a point.
I make a point that you disagree with, i don't have a point. Got it.

hahahahahahahaha!!

Jeeeez.....

I just made a joke thread about how I had to get on teh phone and tell Disney that our company may have infected them with a computer virus and you guys are all going off the deep end. Well, the rubber of our anti virus worked and they didn't get infected so all is well....


My, god, it's not all clouds and thunder. Let a little sunshie in! :)

That was one of the reasons for NY not going down this route. Also, at the time it was first proposed was the scare that upstate would use it as a shitty stick to bash the gays.

Here are some interesting cases (http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm) from various countries, and a bit of a discussion as to how criminalisation, particularily of those who are HIV positive.

Here is one that did result in a racist backlash:

Anthony E. Whitfield, December 2004/12: An African-American from Lacey in the USA, Whitfield was sentenced to an unprecedented 178 years in prison by a court in the state of Washington after exposing 17 women to HIV and infecting his wife and four others. He was found guilty on 17 counts of first-degree assault with sexual motivation, two counts of witness tampering and three counts of violating a court protection order. His conviction spawned a racist leafleting campaign in the state capital, Olympia, with flyers proclaiming "Don't Have Sex With Blacks; Avoid AIDS" delivered to more than 100 homes. Whitfield is one of around 150 people to have been convicted of criminal HIV transmission in the US.


And then you have scumbags like this:

Hans-Otto Schiemann, November 200411: A one-legged, 56-year-old German who lived in Thailand, Schiemann allegedly tried to infect nearly 100 Thai women (including his wife) during the 10 years he lived in the country. As Thailand deliberately has no laws that outlaw unprotected sex or its consequences, he was eventually sentenced to two months in jail for overstaying his visa, and was deported back to Germany. Schiemann was reported to have a pathological hatred of Thai women, and referred to them as 'witches' and 'monkeys', but claimed he had done nothing wrong. He was deported for a second time in November 2005 after he was found to have re-entered the country.

Now, the second case is certainly extreme. This man used his infection as a weapon to harm women he hated. In the first case (without reading the actual case itself) it seems as though the man involved simply didn't care. Perhaps he did it deliberately to cause harm, but more likely he was too selfish to consider the health of others. To be honest, while the second case is truly heinous because of the intent...I do not feel that (outside of the number of people put at risk) that the two situations are all that different. Psychological hatred versus a complete lack of responsibility for the sexual health of one's partners...the outcome is essentially the same.

So ..... Fass makes a point that you agree with. Therefore, a point.
I make a point that you disagree with, i don't have a point. Got it.

No. You failed to make a point at all. When I asked you, numerous times to clarify yourself, you claimed you already had. Please. Imagine that I am totally incapable of grasping your amazing subtlty. Spell it out for me. What point is it that you made? Do not repost your posts. Sum it up.

Here are some interesting cases (http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm) from various countries, and a bit of a discussion as to how criminalisation, particularily of those who are HIV positive.

Here is one that did result in a racist backlash:




And then you have scumbags like this:



Now, the second case is certainly extreme. This man used his infection as a weapon to harm women he hated. In the first case (without reading the actual case itself) it seems as though the man involved simply didn't care. Perhaps he did it deliberately to cause harm, but more likely he was too selfish to consider the health of others. To be honest, while the second case is truly heinous because of the intent...I do not feel that (outside of the number of people put at risk) that the two situations are all that different. Psychological hatred versus a complete lack of responsibility for the sexual health of one's partners...the outcome is essentially the same.
You should run your feelings
by ACT-UP. :)

hahahahahahahaha!!

Jeeeez.....

I just made a joke thread about how I had to get on teh phone and tell Disney that our company may have infected them with a computer virus and you guys are all going off the deep end. Well, the rubber of our anti virus worked and they didn't get infected so all is well....


My, god, it's not all clouds and thunder. Let a little sunshie in! :)
Yes, that's very nice for you. And as I said, feel free to squeeze out as many posts and related jokes as you can out of your OP. The thread began to drift from about the third post, and is actually interesting. Let a little sunshine in.

Seriously...are you people drinking?

Yes, that's very nice for you. And as I said, feel free to squeeze out as many posts and related jokes as you can out of your OP. The thread began to drift from about the third post, and is actually interesting. Let a little sunshine in.

Seriously...are you people drinking?

Ohhhwwww....


:(


I'm sorry you have herpes, but I was just postin'...

I'm sorry you have herpes, but I was just postin'...

Hey, don't complain if you catch it from posting near me. I did warn you.

And I'm not all that sorry. It's a pain to have to explain, but I don't get outbreaks, and I get plenty of nookie.

Seriously...are you people drinking?

Yah, I am actually. Not that it's any of your business.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/2/23/Seriously.png/120px-Seriously.pnghttp://

Yah, I am actually. Not that it's any of your business.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/2/23/Seriously.png/120px-Seriously.pnghttp://

Linky ain't working.

And I'm glad I'm not the only one...but it seems as though I have some catching up to do. Some folks here are slurring their speech so much I can't understand a damn thing they're typing :P

Hey, don't complain if you catch it from posting near me. I did warn you.

And I'm not all that sorry. It's a pain to have to explain, but I don't get outbreaks, and I get plenty of nookie.

NEATO! :)


I just never had to have a call like that and it was wierd to have to call someone and say,...


ummmm......



So, how's your comps? :confused:


See, that's just it. I was just sittin' there at work and just had to do that and I thought it was a funny analogy and then because you have herpes you got all offended by it and called it stupid but I think it's really sort of stuffy for you to take offense. It was just a wierd sitch so I posted! :p No big deal. No reason to take offense. I certainly didn't know you had the bumpy-wumpys and wasnt' pinting it at you...

See, that's just it. I was just sittin' there at work and just had to do that and I thought it was a funny analogy and then because you have herpes you got all offended by it and called it stupid but I think it's really sort of stuffy for you to take offense. It was just a wierd sitch so I posted! :p No big deal. No reason to take offense. I certainly didn't know you had the bumpy-wumpys and wasnt' pinting it at you...

Offended? Offended by what? In the contrary, I apologise if my flippant declaration that your OP was stupid offended you in any way. It wasn't in earnest or in anger, but the title WAS misleading, and reading your OP made me go:confused:. Since people were already discussing it literally, I thought, whoopee, let's talk herpes. You see...it's my favourite discussion to have around the dinner table. Well okay, one of. Ass being the number one topic. You probably think I'm joking.

Now if you're upset that your thread drifted from page one, well...your title is to blame. The analogy clearly wasn't meant to be long lived.

Linky ain't working.

And I'm glad I'm not the only one...but it seems as though I have some catching up to do. Some folks here are slurring their speech so much I can't understand a damn thing they're typing :P

Try this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/Lacadaemon/Seriously.png

Offended? Offended by what? In the contrary, I apologise if my flippant declaration that your OP was stupid offended you in any way. It wasn't in earnest or in anger, but the title WAS misleading, and reading your OP made me go:confused:. Since people were already discussing it literally, I thought, whoopee, let's talk herpes. You see...it's my favourite discussion to have around the dinner table. Well okay, one of. Ass being the number one topic. You probably think I'm joking.

Now if you're upset that your thread drifted from page one, well...your title is to blame. The analogy clearly wasn't meant to be long lived.

Oh, I don't care if it drifted. I just thought it was stuffy to call the OP stupid. Kinda like the one guy sitting in the audience at a standup show who can't take a joke about his race while he laughs at the jokes about everyone else's.


Apology accepted. http://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Try this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/Lacadaemon/Seriously.png

Hahahahhaa, nice:)