Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog
By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.
|
Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?
My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?
What I really don't get about any sort of crime related to knowing HIV infection, aside from the sheer stupidity of the whole concept -- isn't it incredibly counterproductive? Assuming that any such law requires the person passing on HIV to know that he or she is infected and not tell the sex partner -- well, duh, let's all just not ever get tested! Then we'll never know and nobody can ever say that we knowingly or intentionally infected anyone!
Threaded Mode
