No. But if non-disclosure were an arrestable offence, then the other person might have disclosed to you (or simply might not have had sex with you, so as to maintain their privacy) and then you might not have contracted your STD in the first place.
I’m not convinced that non-disclosure ought to be an offence. I think you have to ask pragmatic questions like how effective such a measure might or might not be in reducing the spread of infection, and you also have to balance rights to privacy with the duty of care we owe to one another. But morally I don’t have any difficulty in saying that, yes, if you know you’re infected you have an obligation to disclose this to a partner. And that moral obligation provides a sufficient foundation for a legal obligation, if we judge it to be wise or helpful to impose a legal obligation.
We already require sexual transactions to be consensual, and we already have the notion of “informed consent”. A doctor wishing to treat you, for example, has to make sure you understand the risks associated with your treatment before he gets your consent, and if he knows that the treatment presents a risk which is greater than might be obvious to you but doesn’t tell you that when seeking your consent, I wouldn’t care to be defending him in a subsequent lawsuit. Obviously the situation is not exactly analogous, but there are parallels, one of which is that we have a situation where one person has better and more specific information than the other. That’s precisely the kind of situation where we tend think that information should be equalised if consent is to be meaningful.
Malice in the sense of doing self harm and too others is a under minding problem beneath it all, it’s likened to being possessed by such nonsense.
It owns your underlining actions.
Such do not have any true values and just attack ridicule anyone who does.
I have seen it with all the ones who died from AIDS that I know of, very lonely people with no real true friends and the ones that were real true friends they drove away, because a real friend does not like to see another going down the path of self destruction.
I see it this way why would you want to spread filth and why attack true values of our history that built nations up and of what a real Marriage is truly all about.
Such people can not lookup to real values and use the works of their malice to attack and deride anything that does not fit into their own selfish little view.
It’s abuse ! regardless.
Having sex before marriage is wrong as well don’t you know and anyone who pushes such filth is not setting a good example are they for others.
You can do what you like, but why try to drag others down into muck ? is it a ego thing, tell me what it is that drives one to appose such values.
I would say don’t do this or that and it’s for the benefit of others and get attacked for caring for others best interest. or I could just say who gives a f–k and be regarded a great bloke.
Hell I have had people who tried to lead me down the garden path, do I respect them now for it, no way.
Anything that endangers the life or the physical well being of the participants. You need to protect those who do not fully understand the consequence of their actions.
Good law will always be intrusive in some area’s so that it can protect some people from them selves. Some people enjoy strangulation during the sex act I am sure that those suffering fatalities would have preferred to continue living. Sadly there are people who are only interested in their own self gratification with no consideration for the wellbeing of their sexual partner, these types of relationships are usually driven by lust with a lack of any duty of care compared to a loving sexual relationship where both partners are considerate of each others wellbeing.
Sexual boundaries should be set in law to protect people from acts that could cause harm to themselves or others, not because it upsets the sensibilities of the law maker
Consensual BDSM is indeed consensual. I wouldn’t put it on a list of banned acts. But I guess some people have put it on their list, so maybe that’s the other exception. Nevertheless, I don’t think it should be banned, and it isn’t banned in the U.S. at least, so it’s really not relevant to my comment.
Sex in public is not consensual to bystanders, so I would call it non-consensual in that sense. Just like, say, taking a crap on the street is consensual for the crapper but nobody else and is also therefore banned.
I understand this argument - it applies to things like seatbelt and helmet laws too - but is it actually illegal to nearly strangle someone who consents to it though?
The problem here is when things go wrong, with strangulation would the charge be manslaughter or as the victim was a willing participant would the charge be assisted suicide, many things can go wrong with bondage and gagging especially if taking place in a dungeon or cellar
While it is true that incest is one of the three universal prohibitions found in all societies, it is also true the the definitions of what constitutes incest, murder, or theft can differ in many ways among different societies. Actions regarded as incest, murder, or theft in one society or culture have often been failed to violate the prohibitions under different conditions in other societies or cultures. Without an explicit definition of the prohibition, a condemnation of incest is not particularly useful, and vague appeals to morality are similarly unhelpful in a discussion.
There have been societies in which incest was required among different members of the ruling class and several such societies survived and prospered for hundreds of years. (Similarly, in regard to your comment regarding pre-marital sex, there are societies in which such sexual activity is necessary, as couples do not marry until their mutual fertility has been demonstrated.)
You may have a point with some of your comments, but your generalizations do not actually convey any meaning, as they are too vague to actually apply to any real life situations. (And the particulars that you have provided have often been wrong: my wife practiced her nursing during the early phases of the AIDS epidemic, when a diagnosis of AIDS was a death sentence, and I recall only one patient of hers who died alone, the others were all supported by friends and family, regardless of the stigma of the disease.)
Your references to “degenerates” are confusing, as it is difficult to understand what you are claiming is degenerate or whom you are accusing of degenerate actions.
Your vague claims also are unfortunate in that your lack of specifics gives the appearance that you are arguing for ethnic “purity,” which I am sure is not the case, but which is the impression your remarks convey.
As I have said the law needs to protect. If you choke somebody with their consent and it goes wrong, your only witness to them giving their consent is dead so the charge against you is murder and if the country that you live in has the death penalty you are in trouble. Apart from killing someone there is no law to stop you harming someone with their consent as long as they are of sound mind, the danger to you is if they deny giving their consent, then you face serious charges. I think that the deterrent is the charges you could face if things wrong, not a law that would be imposable to inforce, and that is the probable reason why there are no laws to stop practicing sex acts that are harmful between consenting adults.
I’d say it should be manslaughter, just like if a stuntman died during a stunt on an action movie. The stuntman knows what he’s doing is dangerous, but thinks that there are enough safety precautions and the goal is worth the risk. The choking enthusiast knows that what he’s doing is dangerous, but thinks that they’re being safe enough and that the goal is worth the risk. An outsider might look at the stuntman or choking enthusiast and think that they have a death wish, but death is not the goal for either.
Then manslaughter prosecutions should be brought if safety was actually overlooked, and no prosecution if there was just an unfortunate accident and medical intervention was sought but failed.
This is a good point that there wouldn’t be other witnesses to the consent. The prosecution would have to be on a case by case basis. Imagine two cases, one where Alice dies after being choked by Brandon, and one where Claire dies after being choked by Daniel. If Alice and Brandon were BDSM enthusiasts who went to BDSM classes and parties and visited the local dungeon, used whatever recommended technique that the classes recommend (I’m assuming there is a safer though not completely safe method), Brandon called 911 immediately when he saw that Alice wasn’t breathing, and she had some health problems that contributed, then I’d hope all charges would be dismissed against Brandon. But in Daniels case, if there’s no proof that either of them were interested in BDSM or choking, he waited too long to call 911, they were having serious marriage problems, and Daniel was known for his temper, then I’d hope murder or at least manslaughter charges would be brought against Daniel.
That’s the toughest quandary right there, I think.
On the one hand, you’re protecting people whose ability to consent is in question, particularly in a world full of folks that will take advantage of such people. On the other, you’re basically saying that mentally ill people are forever legally prohibited from interpersonal sexual contact, which I’d argue might be the greater harm.
(There’s also the problem that “mentally ill” is a huge spectrum, and there’s really unlikely to be only one “right” answer across the whole thing.)
The word Abo is exactly like the word Aussie it’s just a shorter version of the word and anyone who thinks differently is a nut or is a new age political correct type who runs about trying to make something out of things that are not there, I know the younger generation have been brainwashed into all that rubbish, it’s just madness to me what they claim.
All my aboriginal mates refer to themselves as abo’s and they are full blood or half, but the people in the city’s refer to themselves as Aboriginals only now days and that’s due to PC and white people claiming to be Aboriginal are the worst, to me they are a nothing but a joke.
Fact is that a Aboriginal is a full blood that is what the word always meant before PC came about. the others are truly correctly called mulattos and that is according to my full blood aboriginal mates that I have know for over 50 years. it’s they who make the point because it’s they who see their people being breed out, but they are fighting a battle that can’t be won because the TV media disregard them and will not let them speak about it and in the last 16 years the other part aboriginals have been attacking them full on standing over them to shut them up, it became so vicious that now they just shut up in fear now and no one listens to them.
Two of my best mates were from what’s called the stolen generation, now when they were kids the other aboriginals hung shit on them for being such and then when the trend changed they were looked up too, funny that trends can change and even turn 180 degrees. I seen it happen !
PC Nazi’s can change most peoples views in 10 years 180 degrees by the media TV and the schools and we seen the same thing in Hitler’s Germany and he even said he could do so and not to mention he did do it.
Anyone with there own view is regarded as a enemy of the state under Political Correctness.
I am not pushing ethnic purity at all but I do understand my aboriginal mates point of view is that their race is under attack, as it’s they who have said this for years and they do say you whites have been trying to destroy us for 200 years and I agree with them it’s true on many things they are correct.
And then I get attacked for being a racist for f sake ! talk about morons, I am supporting the real peoples rights.
A degenerate action is just what it is, I hold up the truth and the moral position like Marriage, now I did not do that myself but I still hold the value is correct and the best or highest virtue, I don’t look at the value and try to drag it through the mud, like if I had a inferiority complex about it and I do think that this is a big problem with people when such complex gets in the way.
Joe Blow is better than me richer than me boo hoo, I am truly glad that someone is at least I have another to look up to.
