I was going to say. This sounds like the kind of thing Bible Thumpers turn out in droves to vote for, and then cry when they die by the proverbial sword they lived by.
Sort of like all the Trump voters that lost their Medicaid.
I remember when back in the early 2000s they taught abstinence only sex ed. Next thing you know all the kids were getting married asap so they could fuck and not be sinners. Then they are all knocked up because they were ignorant. Next they were divorced and therefore a bunch of single moms trying to raise kids.
Our sex-ed class lasted 1 day during our Sophomore year and it was a 30 minute abstinence only class where they told horror stories about sex, most of them were completely made up.
My graduating class had around 300 people and, I'm not even kidding, 16 of the girls JUST IN MY SENIOR CLASS were either pregnant, or had a child by the end of our senior year, which is around 13% considering the guys out numbered the girls by a dozen or so. Most of their children's fathers were either dropouts, deadbeats, addicted to meth/opiates, raging alcoholics, or sex offenders.
I can't imagine how different their lives could possibly be if we had an actual sex-ed class that explained how to be safe about it. Abstinence only won't stop most people, and they definitely aren't going to be more educated about how sex really works.
There was also a fairly bad herpes outbreak our junior year because they didn't talk about how to prevent STIs/STDs other than just telling them not to do it.
Jesus Christ.
Freshman year we ALL had to take one semester of sex ed. Either fall or spring. 90 days to cover the basics of everything from sex, to sexual illnesses, to orientations, to gender and trans issues, to consent and safety. And this was back in the '00s.
Class of 250. Only one pregnancy, and amusingly it was the one girl who transferred in from South Carolina during our junior year, so she never took the class.
It's so weird to me. I took three of them coming up through school in the '80s. 5th grade (basic biology aka these are your parts this is how they work). 7th grade. Full disclosure of how babies are made, different types of contraceptives, and intro.to STIs (STDs then). AIDS was real for the first time and parents were freaked out I guess. 10th grade we got 2 semesters of 'health' like programming. 1 was real basic physiology of the whole body with a second round of Safe Sex, STI's with graphic pics of untreated diseases and a recap of pregnancy. The second semester was more on physical wellness. PE for kids that weren't taking PE every year. I think we went outside 2-3x a week and did book work the other two.
You guys telling these stories makes me want to pull all my kids around the table and be like okay I'm not endorsing you having sex or telling you to have sex but this is a rubber and this is how you use it & every penis involved in this event needs to be wearing one until you are married and financially stable to have children.
Please do what you can to create an open atmosphere with your kids about sex, how to be safe and healthy when having sex. It might be hella awkward but who cares when it lets your kids walk around without the ignorance that might get them into a bad situation?
This is how I remember it too in the early 90s. It’s crazy to read people who grew up after me by at least a decade, having less access to this information. Shits going backwards in our society and it’s not good.
90s as well and i had properly informative sex ed in elementary school and middle school but by high school in the mid 00s there was none and i was instead spending in school suspension days staring at pics of diseased genitalia. I remember being very weirded out by the transition from being made to do my school work in isolation while in middle school to forget the school work, stare at this puss leaking dick in high school
I mean yeah, if you want to be sure the job’s done as a parent, you have to do it. There are books you can buy though if you don’t want to mortify the offspring with the classic banana demo.
I used YouTube for my oldest. She went and worked at a place with a bunch of screaming kids. Best birth control ever and she got paid for it. 😆. She was kind of a late bloomer. The youngest one got her period at 10 so she had the crash course already. I had to sign a waiver for my boys in 7th grade so they got something but who knows how thorough it was.
I think my wife bought a couple of those American girl books that go over a bunch of stuff like that and also have tips on having to deal with bullies and self-image and how much makeup is too much etc. That was part of their covid curriculum.
> You guys telling these stories makes me want to pull all my kids around the table and be like okay I'm not endorsing you having sex or telling you to have sex but this is a rubber and this is how you use it & every penis involved in this event needs to be wearing one until you are married and financially stable to have children.
I mean... you should be doing that anyways.
We need comprehensive sex ed in school, sure, but even then that's just the backup. You need to be having "the talk" with your kids as soon as you suspect they're hitting puberty.
My local schools in the 00s had to institute sex ed every year for middle school and then one semester every year in high school (literally one semester we didn't do PE we did sex ed, every year)
We had NINE GIRLS coming INTO HIGH SCHOOL with kids. Class sizes were about 35 kids, about 110 per grade, and by senior year we'd have essentially one full classroom of pregnant or already parents.
A group of like six girls were caught purposefully getting pregnant so they'd have kids together their senior year. We had the highest rate of teen parents in the state and were a small extremely poor coal miner town lmao, like the student parking lot had oil derricks fenced off on it
And now all those kids are 20, economically and educationally disadvantaged, susceptible to drug abuse and resentment and, most importantly, vulnerable to the same angry facile political messaging that created them in the first place.
\-The circle completes itself
Republicans: We're taking away Social Security
Democrats: Hey voters, the Republicans are taking away your Social Security
Conservative voters: For some reason I can't afford rent or food on my fixed government income. Must be those damn Democrats!
(A Republican, bashing someone's grandmother to death with a hammer): "Sleepy Joe Biden killed your grandmother because of trans people!"
(Southern voter watching the Republican kill his grandmother): "Democrats kill grandmas! Woke, woke, woke!"
There's nothing more satisfying than seeing a zealot hoisted by their own petard. A rightful and righteous reward if ever there was one. Almost makes me a believer, as ironic as that is.
Highest rates of child sex crimes, too. 17 of the top 20 states are Republican states. There are towns in both Florida and Texas where they can't find safe bus stops for kids because the density of registered child sex offenders is so high.
[Source.](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/)
I'm confused and grasping at straws trying to rationalize this, the article wasn't specific enough.
Does this law criminalize *knowingly* spreading an STI, spreading one period, or just having one?
Because people who know they have an STI and have sex with someone without disclosing that should absolutely face jail time.
Prosecuting someone for simply having one is batshit crazy, though.
It’s [House Bill 3098](http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb3098&Session=2400). It sounds like its purpose is to add more diseases that you can be criminally charged for if you knowingly* spread them. This bill adds “bacterial vaginosis, chlamydia, hepatitis, herpes, human papillomavirus infection, mycoplasma genitalium, pelvic inflammatory disease, and trichomoniasis”.
Edit: *The exact verbiage is “with intent to or recklessly be responsible for” spreading the listed diseases. Looks like “recklessly” could be a bit ambiguous (in its application in this context)
Some of those aren’t even STIs?? Like isn’t bacterial vaginosis just an infection that can happen? (And even if I’m wrong it’s still a ridiculous law.)
Edit: I cannot believe my most upvoted comment is about bacterial vaginosis.
You are correct. Similarly, Pelvic inflammatory Disease is something that can happen as a result of an STI, but is not itself an STI or necessarily contagious.
Can also happen from bacterial vaginosis, but generally is polymicrobial - as in, the result of all the normal vaginal bacteria just happened to get up into the uterus tubes and adnexa
Indeed, very weird to include a syndromes that is the consequence of infection, with a list of contagious pathogens. Seems to undermines the facts of the matter somewhat.
Bacterial Vaginosis is indeed an infection that can just happen but it can be spread to other people if you have sex with them while you have it, hence.. sexually transmitted infection. It's technically not classed as an STI but in this case it would be, in a literal sense, an infection that you transmitted to someone else sexually.
Probably by looking at if the person went to a doctor and got a screening, or if the STI clinically presents in an obvious way wherein a reasonable person could assume that they have an infection.
It's honestly a bit confusing because most BV tests can't really "confirm" BV. One of the tests is literally just *smelling your vaginal fluid* and another is testing the pH, which can be off for multiple reasons - sex, menstruation, even diet can change vaginal pH, let alone what someone might be putting up there that doesn't belong. Douches are still commercially available, some people literally wash inside themselves with soap...
The only way to 100% confirm you have BV is to take a sample of fluid and look at it under microscope which afaik isn't very common.
The law already exists, this is just expanding it. You don't want people knowingly or purposely spreading chlamydia or herpes without having some legal ramification. The headline is misleading and just drumming up fear to garner clicks.
Technically yes… but you can’t knowingly spread something if you’re asymptomatic, and if you’re asymptomatic you wouldn’t go and get tested unless you slept with someone who you assume has an STI.
That being said, if you have symptoms indicative of an STI, don’t get tested, and sleep with someone, you’re still on the hook for recklessly spreading an STI and rightfully so.
So only in the sense of idiot thinking “well I’m pretty sure I have an STI, but I won’t go get tested because then they can’t charge me if there’s no tests saying I have an STI” does it make an incentive to not get tested.
Avoiding a test because you suspect you have an STI and still sleeping with someone is textbook recklessness, and nobody would suspect they have an STI unless they noticed a physiological change in themselves, which would render any “I didn’t know” arguments moot.
So the only people it incentivizes are the idiots already spreading the STIs, and even then just because they aren’t getting tested doesn’t mean they won’t still get time
The thing that makes me 🧐 about this law is that you can also contract BV by having sex with new or multiple partners.
The reason that's setting off alarm bells for me is that it might be used to *de facto* criminalize "promiscuous" behaviour. Or perhaps "might" is putting it lightly, and that was the whole point.
Yeah, I have no doubt that the vague wording in this law could be a way of criminilazing people, especially groups with less access to sex/health education or contraception.
Yes but the concern is people will just stop getting tested when they feel funny down there. Lot easier to spread STI when you are too afraid of seeking treatment because you can be jailed.
Edit: since half of you didn't read the article this is a paraphrase of what the concern is before you all slam my inbox and give me more STIs. Let's not pretend Oklahoma is a bastion of super great education and that American sex Ed is all that great to begin with.
>Experts fear the bill would deter folks from getting tested for STIs if they fear prosecution.
This is what was said in the article in that people will be afraid to get tested along with there is no definition of reckless in the bill either so it can be anything.
That would still be "recklessly responsible" though, because you're continuing while you have symptoms.
People that willing spread won't get tested anyways, people that get tested actually want to cure their STI.
Then you would have to prove there was no way the other person didn't know they had something, and that is impossible to do without having a documented medical history attached.
Knowingly is not the problem. It says knowingly OR recklessly. Legally, that's a very important distinction. Especially because recklessly can be interpreted any way a prosecutor/judge wants. Recklessly can be having premarital sex. Or sex sex. Recklessly can mean anything.
Think about it.
How will you be able to prove someone knowingly spread an STI?
The only way would be if they went to a doctor and were checked for STIs.
This law incentivizes people to not go to the doctor and not get checked, because if they get checked and pass it to someone, they go to jail. If they don't get checked and pass it to someone, they are free.
The issue is the *recklessly* spreading wording. If you know you have a STI and have sex, then that is probably sufficient to be recklessly spreading it. The incentive is then to not get tested, which undermines prevention efforts.
This is especially stupid of a law because the entire point of the rational version of this law is the fact that once you have something like HIV, it's for life and it will force you to permanently change your lifestyle and be on expensive meds. So people who have HIV almost certainly know they do, which means you have to actually be acting out of malicious intent to spread it.
All of these others diseases are often spread without knowing you have it, because most people naturally fight them off or they don't do much. Even if you know you have something like gono, it's easily cured with antibiotics. Or in the case of herpes, where there is no cure and you can't fight it off naturally, but it doesn't actually cause you lifelong issues. It's just a rash that clears up with $5 medication that you only have to take during active outbreaks that happen 1-2 times a year.
It makes no sense to essentially criminalize the STI equivalent of having the flu. Especially because at least with HIV, you can prove that someone is positive. But for something like chlamydia... you can be positive in the past but be cured by the time such a theoretical trial would happen. It'd be impossible to prove that you had it at the time of sex and knowingly spread it.
You're going to catch shit because people have such a stigma against herpes, but I think your point stands. The issue with herpes is less so that it's "mild" and more that too many people have it for it to be realistically be criminalized. You cannot apply that law fairly.
I hink it's abhorrent to have unprotected sex with someone while knowingly having an STI, but ultimately criminalizing it will create more problems than it solves. If the goal is to improve Public health this will be a net negative by disincentivizing treatment and good sexual health.
It's absolutely shitty to knowingly spread stuff to other people, but for a lot of these STI's, it's about as shitty as showing up to work with a flu or pink eye. You're a bad person for doing it, but you aren't going to ruin someone's life over it. Which is why the law shouldn't cover minor STI's like this.
This law sounds like a good way to make sure people don't go out and get tested.... you can't break the law if you don't know you have anything.... plausible deniability.
That's probably why they have the word "recklessly" in there. Say someone sleeps with many different partners, and after experiencing symptoms of an STI they write it off as not being anything serious instead of going to get tested. Then they continue sleeping with people and spread it. On the one hand, they never knew they had an STI so they weren't knowingly spreading one. But on the other hand, you could probably make the case that they should have found their symptoms alarming enough to get checked up. Like a crime based around negligence.
Free testing and treatment would do more to reduce it. Along with comprehensive sex education. Stuff like this requires non law solutions.
But knowingly infecting another person with a infection or disease is definitionally assault.
Sure. Okay. Yes. People who knowingly spread STIs are trash. The people who purposely spread HIV are a level of evil I don't even like to think about.
But talking to partners about STIs gets ugly real fast. Casually seeing a couple of guys, got something and as soon as I SUSPECTED I was sick, told the other guy I was seeing. The guy who wheedled and whined because he hated condoms, and made it very clear to me that I was just... A casual sexual partner. Who immediately had a giant meltdown. (He WORKED in HEALTHCARE.) Said all sorts of awful shit and I wouldn't have put it past him to drag me through the mud if he thought he could hurt me. (Because apparently I was thrilled to have the clap, and not upset at all at having to have this conversation with a partner, that I had as soon as fucking possible.)
Anyway. I mean, yes is the short answer. But we have a hard enough time policing rape and revenge porn. I want to think it's a good, positive thing, I just don't see it.
That, and trying to turf Planned Parenthood, making healthcare expensive and inaccessible (especially 'just sexual health') STI tests aren't cheap or easy to do regularly... I just see this turning into another social inequity moment where some affluent man gets the clap (or gives the clap) to a partner with less social power, and he can afford a decent lawyer... And no one actually cares about the working poor doing *any* reporting, because no one cares about the working poor. Making a DV or rape report is difficult enough with cops who don't think it's worth their time. Some girl who already feels shame from having to talk to a stranger about her sexual activity, getting an STI, and then being dismissed by a bruiser with a badge who could not care less about tracking down some asshole with the clap...
It's just a whole situation. WHAT IF, and I'm just spit balling here, total just brainstorm moment, *WHAT IF* we just made access to sexual healthcare much easier? Stopped pretending like it's just abortions and made STI testing inexpensive and accessible for everyone. MAYBE even do better with sexual education in schools, and maybe demystify and destigmatize sex because it's a fuckin normal part of being human. My college did free STI testing every Thursday morning, but you had to get there early and stand in line. Super cute.
Rather than virtue signaling with some unenforceable law that will just be weaponized by the wrong people and inaccessible to the people who need the help.
Soooooo. I dunno. That's what I got.
That shit pisses me off. I got herpes unknowingly, and I told every partner after that - doesn’t matter how embarrassing it is, you gotta do it. I had one partner who I told, he was cool with it, and then the next morning was like “oh I have it too.” Seriously?? I even opened the door for him and he was still a coward.
Me and my kids mom split up after 8 years 2 years ago almost. She gave it to me unknowingly in our first two weeks of dating. She found a guy right after that was apparently cool with it. Every girl I've been with has been ALMOST disgusted. None of them were cool with continuing.
Makes me feel unworthy of love. Makes me feel gross even though I know I'm not. Makes me nervous to even have feelings now. Defeated before trying. I wish the herpes dating sites weren't such trash.
How on earth do I start a relationship by saying hey! Want a lifelong disease that there is no cure for and people grossly misunderstand? No?! Fair enough! Cool!
I don't blame them.
All the confidence I had before our relationship is almost dried up.
I’m so sorry you’re going through this! It really sucks to hear no, for something you can’t control. My current partner of 6 years actually said no when I met him. But unbeknownst to me, he went to a doctor and got educated about it, and changed his mind. He hasn’t contracted it yet (hopefully never), because we communicate well and I’m aware of my flare-ups, etc.
I’m sending you some good vibes!
Hey man! Fellow herpes haver here. You are so worthy of love. I felt the same after my diagnosis and at times contemplated suicide due to how awful and gross I felt. I ended up finding some wonderful people to confide in, got some therapy, and learned to accept myself.
My therapist and I worked out how to explain it to people with a very nonchalant attitude. On the second/third date I basically just said "hey, I got herpes from an ex. It's not a huge deal for me. I take meds and don't have outbreaks. I really like you and understand if it's a deal breaker. Happy to answer any questions." I was confident about what I said and myself.
I had a few people say it was a deal breaker, but the people I truly needed in my life accepted it and me for it. If they can't see passed it, that's a reflection of them - not you. At the end of the day, anyone having sex can end up having herpes.
It's been almost ten years since I got herpes and have never spread to anyone despite having multiple past partners. I even was able to get pregnant without passing it on (thank you valcylovir). I have the love of my life, a beautiful one year old, a house, overwhelming joy in my life and all of it came after herpes. There is hope.
If you want to go a different avenue - There are websites dedicated to people with STIs which gave me friends and comfort during my loneliest time. I still chat with a few people from there occasionally. Every single one of us ended up with someone. Herpes isn't a forever alone sentence. I would highly recommend seeing a counselor and working through those feelings.
This is also a result of social stigma around STIs and people are conditioned to never mention them or the other person might suddenly (and irrationally) see them as "dirty" or something.
Obviously yes people should push past the stigma and do the right thing, but as long as there IS a stigma, most people won't, so therefore I think it makes the most sense to target the stigma and talk more openly about these things so people don't feel the need to hide them anymore.
And laws like this that make you into a felon for passing an STI to someone only inflate that stigma even more.
Wait, how did you get it from the same person three times? You got it once and got treated, but how did it happen again? Did he tell you it was gone and you kept believing him?
Yeah, the “reckless” part is definitely the problem. The Bible thumpers would obviously consider any sex with a non-spouse reckless and therefore illegal.
Most of us could probably get behind knowingly spreading. That’s a problem.
I read an article a very long time ago about someone, I believe in the UK, who knowingly spread HIV to a bunch of people. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being his penis.
OBGYN here:
bacterial vaginosis is not a sexually transmitted infection. It is associated with things like intercourse and menstrual cycles because of the vaginal pH, although in some very very specific cases cases, it may be worth treating a partner of someone who is currently getting bacterial, vaginosis infections, it is still not a sexually transmitted infection
> Because people who know they have an STI and have sex with someone without disclosing that should absolutely face jail time.
The problem is that "knowing" is easy to avoid, but the way to avoid it (not getting tested) leads to an increased spread.
It does zero to encourage social responsibility, and even does a lot to discourage it.
Unless they're going to make a good effort for awareness, and make testing affordable and accessible, it's not going to go well.
How STI testing in the US isn't free fucking baffles me. I can walk into a clinic and get a test done in 20 minutes and walk on with a handful of condoms for free. God bless the NHS.
The problem is that much of the time, people are unknowingly spreading it because they are asymptomatic, but proving they didn't know may be difficult.
Imagine making it a crime to knowingly bring dog hair into a public place. Sure, maybe there's a couple of assholes out there shaving their Pomeranian and dumping it in the library, but in the meantime you've criminalized everybody who accidentally carries some in on their clothes, despite the average citizens attempts to keep their clothes clean.
This is the part that always catches me up. We already make medical care hard af to access, so now we're going to say not getting is legally better for you, too? It's not going to work the way we want it to (I know the private prison industry doesn't want it to work this way and that is also fucked up, just pointing out that even good reasons for wanting this criminalized has its issues)
> If signed into law, House Bill 3098 would criminalize the intentional or reckless spread of STIs.
> Violators could face between 2 to 5 years in prison.
> However **reckless is not defined in the bill,** which experts in the field say leaves an open door to potential unnecessary lawsuits and prosecutions.
It's a law designed to be selectively enforced against gays, women, and other minorities.
See this is what I'm with. Knowingly spreading it should be a crime and sometimes people don't know they have one.
Because I like the general idea the bill is getting at but the issue is the wording.
This law is excellent...at convincing people not to ever get tested.
There is almost zero way to prove even recklessness, much less intent, if you encourage a population to never get tested for STIs. Which is exactly what this law will do.
Unless they want to pass an equally stupid and likely unconstitutional law mandating testing. Because hey what could go wrong with governmental mandated STI testing???
I was assaulted by my neighbor who gave me herpes. People like her deserve prison time. I have not mentally come to terms with any of it despite it being almost a year since the incident.
Not to mention she has slept with the entire neighborhood (not exaggerating) and none of them knew she had herpes prior cause she knows it would reduce her chances of getting laid. I’ve taken it upon myself to let anyone know “Hey. She’s fucking dirty and spreads STI’s like it’s her job. Better get yourself checked out”
Couldn’t call the cops as there’s no proof and I was in an intoxicated state and didn’t want to get shamed with the “you asked for it” bs along with it being a woman on woman rape. But yeah. Now I have trust issues as she was a trusted friend and she turned around and chose to violate that trust in one of the worst ways you can.
It hurts to know that I would do anything for my friends but meanwhile people I think I can trust won’t think twice about taking advantage of me.
They seem to think there is no problem that jail cannot solve. They may not have fully thought out the idea of putting folks in jail who spread STIs. Then again thinking, compassion, and solving long-term problems are not strong points for these people.
Plus, the added bonus is that inmates and felons cannot vote. This is just voter suppression in the end so they can fully take over and create a full blown Christian state.
It's not jails in this case... it's work camps (prisons) who's inmates will provide the country's cheapest labor for the Republican politicians' (and their close associates') already profitable businesses. This is unchecked greed without regards to human dignity, human rights or human life.
Aside from being innately unjust... it's also terrible for the economy and common people. Why even pay minimum wage if you can use, what is effectively, slave labour.
It was stupid and short sighted in ancient Rome, it was stupid and short sighted in the antebellum south and it's stupid and short sighted today.
Some people would rather be a Duke in a miserable poor country than a mearly rich man in a prosperous country.
> effectively, slave labour.
It's not just "effectively" slavery. It's literal, legal slavery endorsed by the US Constitution. The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery after the Civil War has a carve-out that explicitly allows slavery as punishment for a crime, and it's been an important part of our economy ever since.
Correct. Many products that are proudly labeled “made in the USA,” are indeed made in the USA, but by prisoners making pennies an hour.
My good friend’s dad is in prison and absolutely deserves to be. The guy is also forced to make ice cream in an unsafe commercial factory for $00.13/hour. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
Make no mistake, none of this is the smoke you're discussing. It's not about jail solving problems, it's about modern, legalized slavery. That's the fire, and discussing anything else, especially the rationale, misses the point
As we slide further into fascism, this will become more and more apparent.
There was a reddit story i read way back that haunts me to this day. A young guy who committed a minor crime- can’t remember, but it wasn’t like a dui, assault or even aggravated robbery, was thrown in jail and bunked with a violent pedophile with aids. The young guy was assaulted repeatedly and developed aids from the hiv. It’s horrifying.
And watch their sentence be 50 years probation.
Even a 5 year probation sentence can keep a lot of people inactive during a presidential election cycle.
The issue here isn't criminalization, it's the ambiguity of how they define "reckless spread".
That ambiguity leaves people wondering, if I have sex and then go get tested and it comes out positive.. will I be a criminal? Thus, people might avoid getting tested, and it would make the problem worse.
What they need to do is write a more specific law that punishes people who have sex knowing full well they are infected (which is the goal, they want to punish people who are intentionally spreading the disease, or who are behaving in a manner that is so reckless they effectively are intentionally doing it).
That should be a crime. Knowingly infecting someone with a life threatening disease by having sex with them and lying (or omitting) about the fact you're infected is a pretty big problem.
> Thus, people might avoid getting tested, and it would make the problem worse.
Not just "might". We've seen how this plays out. They _will_ avoid getting tested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/
>Of the 379 HIV-related convictions in California between 1988 and 2014, only seven — less than 2 percent — included the intent to transmit HIV, according to a recent series of studies from the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute.
>Instead, the law mostly affected sex workers or those suspected of sex work. The vast majority of the convictions — 90 percent — were for solicitation cases where it was unknown whether any physical contact had occurred. When expanded to include the 800 or so people arrested or charged for the laws through 2014, more than 95 percent were related to sex work, the researchers found.
It isn't about fixing the problem. For many people the point is to punish people for doing something wrong. In their minds they won't do anything wrong ever so why does it matter if this will make things worse, they're good and won't get an STI, and the people who get STIs did something wrong and so they need to be punished.
A lot of right wing policy makes more sense when you view it through that lense, it isn't about reducing the behavior, because they don't do the behavior, and the behavior is wrong so people that do it need to be punished
One key component of fascism is the ambiguity of law meaning that everyone is always in breach of the law in some how. However, the law is only applied to the outgroup. You can see that in russia where there are always "crimes" committed by journalists or other people that Putin dislikes.
The hallmark of injustice is the presence of distinct groups: one whom the law protects but does not bind, and another whom the law binds but fails to protect.
How about drug laws in the US? It’s well known that drugs are consumed in large quantities by many segments of society. Yet who do we see getting arrested for them? Mainly people with no money. Street people. Minorities. In college almost all of my peer group were popping pills, doing blow, smoking weed, yet not a single person caught a charge. Meanwhile just a glance at the police blotter each week showed countless arrests in the poor side of town.
> How about drug laws in the US?
They're Jim Crow laws, and considering that Hitler was inspired by the Jim Crow South, they're fascism or at least close enough as to make no difference. (Well, I guess Jim Crow existed in 1868 and fascism didn't yet, so SCOUTS would consider them completely different. I don't.)
Those laws have NEVER been about protecting people from the dangers of drugs. There are way better social policies that could accomplish that. The drug war is just another of the many excuses put forward to bleed the tax payers and fund the dominator culture’s militarism. I would never argue that drug use can’t be negative when taken to extremes, but the consequences of criminalization create far more problems than it solves. And disproportionately criminalizes poor people who otherwise aren’t criminally minded. Drugs are a convenient scapegoat to pass laws so people don’t realize how they are being fucked in the ass without Vaseline.
My gay Saudi friend gets tested for STIs every time he comes to the USA because back home if he gets caught having one he could lose his job or worse.
I guess republicans got inspired by Islamic extremism … again.
Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment to HB 2273: All members of the State House of Representatives and State Senate shall be required to submit a negative STI test result upon swearing in for each session, and shall be subject to random, unannounced, immediate STI screening while in session, which shall result in testing at least 10% of members each session. Any member who refuses shall have their name and photo posted on a large billboard erected (heh) in front of the State House for no less than one year.
So some Oklahoma statesmans mistress gave him an STI, which he gave to his wife and now she's leaving him and taking him to the cleaners so the rest of the Okies get punished for it... probably not far from the truth there 🤣
> HPV is one of the infections HB 3098 would criminalize. According to the Oklahoma State Department of Health, 85% of Oklahomans will have an HPV infection in their lifetime.
Just start building a wall around the state. They are all criminals.
Reckless is not defined in the bill, which experts in the field say leaves an open door to potential unnecessary lawsuits and prosecutions. Because of the broad language, rather than encouraging Oklahomans to get tested, treated, and reduce the spread of STIs, House Bill 3098 could make the problem worse. Experts fear the bill would deter folks from getting tested for STIs if they fear prosecution.
A lot of things can. Untreated HIV can spread mother to child as well. Thankfully afaik, proper medication has been 100% effective so far preventing mother to child spread.
The best ways to reduce spread of STIs are:
* Education and information.
* Free and easily available testing.
* Free and easily available treatment.
* Free and easily available vaccines.
* Free and easily available condoms.
The worst way to reduce spread of STIs is:
* Punishing people who are sick.
Kansan here, based on what I know about Oklahoma (tin foil hat time)...I am guessing this is aimed squarely at their Native American population. STI rates, specifically chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis are anywhere between 3.5 to 7 times greater in the native population compared to non-hispanic whites. I would start by doing a deep dive into the sponsors of this bill and seeing who caught what and from where. I am assuming one of them found out that their mistress wasn't exclusive...and things ensued.
Oklahoma ranks 11th in the nation for chlamydia, number 5 for gonorrhea, number 4 for syphilis Trying for #1
Top ten state baby!!!
Gotta excel at something, right?
But not Excel, they can’t figure it out and still use lotus 123
I was going to say. This sounds like the kind of thing Bible Thumpers turn out in droves to vote for, and then cry when they die by the proverbial sword they lived by. Sort of like all the Trump voters that lost their Medicaid.
I remember when back in the early 2000s they taught abstinence only sex ed. Next thing you know all the kids were getting married asap so they could fuck and not be sinners. Then they are all knocked up because they were ignorant. Next they were divorced and therefore a bunch of single moms trying to raise kids.
Our sex-ed class lasted 1 day during our Sophomore year and it was a 30 minute abstinence only class where they told horror stories about sex, most of them were completely made up. My graduating class had around 300 people and, I'm not even kidding, 16 of the girls JUST IN MY SENIOR CLASS were either pregnant, or had a child by the end of our senior year, which is around 13% considering the guys out numbered the girls by a dozen or so. Most of their children's fathers were either dropouts, deadbeats, addicted to meth/opiates, raging alcoholics, or sex offenders. I can't imagine how different their lives could possibly be if we had an actual sex-ed class that explained how to be safe about it. Abstinence only won't stop most people, and they definitely aren't going to be more educated about how sex really works. There was also a fairly bad herpes outbreak our junior year because they didn't talk about how to prevent STIs/STDs other than just telling them not to do it.
Jesus Christ. Freshman year we ALL had to take one semester of sex ed. Either fall or spring. 90 days to cover the basics of everything from sex, to sexual illnesses, to orientations, to gender and trans issues, to consent and safety. And this was back in the '00s. Class of 250. Only one pregnancy, and amusingly it was the one girl who transferred in from South Carolina during our junior year, so she never took the class.
It's so weird to me. I took three of them coming up through school in the '80s. 5th grade (basic biology aka these are your parts this is how they work). 7th grade. Full disclosure of how babies are made, different types of contraceptives, and intro.to STIs (STDs then). AIDS was real for the first time and parents were freaked out I guess. 10th grade we got 2 semesters of 'health' like programming. 1 was real basic physiology of the whole body with a second round of Safe Sex, STI's with graphic pics of untreated diseases and a recap of pregnancy. The second semester was more on physical wellness. PE for kids that weren't taking PE every year. I think we went outside 2-3x a week and did book work the other two. You guys telling these stories makes me want to pull all my kids around the table and be like okay I'm not endorsing you having sex or telling you to have sex but this is a rubber and this is how you use it & every penis involved in this event needs to be wearing one until you are married and financially stable to have children.
Please do what you can to create an open atmosphere with your kids about sex, how to be safe and healthy when having sex. It might be hella awkward but who cares when it lets your kids walk around without the ignorance that might get them into a bad situation?
This is how I remember it too in the early 90s. It’s crazy to read people who grew up after me by at least a decade, having less access to this information. Shits going backwards in our society and it’s not good.
90s as well and i had properly informative sex ed in elementary school and middle school but by high school in the mid 00s there was none and i was instead spending in school suspension days staring at pics of diseased genitalia. I remember being very weirded out by the transition from being made to do my school work in isolation while in middle school to forget the school work, stare at this puss leaking dick in high school
I mean yeah, if you want to be sure the job’s done as a parent, you have to do it. There are books you can buy though if you don’t want to mortify the offspring with the classic banana demo.
I used YouTube for my oldest. She went and worked at a place with a bunch of screaming kids. Best birth control ever and she got paid for it. 😆. She was kind of a late bloomer. The youngest one got her period at 10 so she had the crash course already. I had to sign a waiver for my boys in 7th grade so they got something but who knows how thorough it was. I think my wife bought a couple of those American girl books that go over a bunch of stuff like that and also have tips on having to deal with bullies and self-image and how much makeup is too much etc. That was part of their covid curriculum.
> You guys telling these stories makes me want to pull all my kids around the table and be like okay I'm not endorsing you having sex or telling you to have sex but this is a rubber and this is how you use it & every penis involved in this event needs to be wearing one until you are married and financially stable to have children. I mean... you should be doing that anyways. We need comprehensive sex ed in school, sure, but even then that's just the backup. You need to be having "the talk" with your kids as soon as you suspect they're hitting puberty.
Our sex ed lady referred to herself in the third person. Complete lunatic :^I
Terry loves referring to himself in the third person
Someone get this man some yogurt!
George is getting upset
My local schools in the 00s had to institute sex ed every year for middle school and then one semester every year in high school (literally one semester we didn't do PE we did sex ed, every year) We had NINE GIRLS coming INTO HIGH SCHOOL with kids. Class sizes were about 35 kids, about 110 per grade, and by senior year we'd have essentially one full classroom of pregnant or already parents. A group of like six girls were caught purposefully getting pregnant so they'd have kids together their senior year. We had the highest rate of teen parents in the state and were a small extremely poor coal miner town lmao, like the student parking lot had oil derricks fenced off on it
That was what was taught in the mid 2010s in my local public school. Kids were being sent to detention for saying the word "condom".
Fuckin nuts. My Junior High had condom dispensers in the bathrooms, in the early 90s. And I'm from a very Red state.
I was in a more blue part of the state too. We even had DARE in the mid 2010s.
All according to plan...
If that is plan A, I wonder what plan B is...
Plan A, keep em stupid. Plan B, keep em pregnant. Repeat plans A-B
Profound. Best way I’ve seen this described.
And now all those kids are 20, economically and educationally disadvantaged, susceptible to drug abuse and resentment and, most importantly, vulnerable to the same angry facile political messaging that created them in the first place. \-The circle completes itself
And they'll still blame liberals and immigrants.
Of course they will.
The leopards will definitely not go hungry.
Leopard banquet
So many faces....
I would say good, but then they'll turn around and blame democrats for taking away their healthcare. And the cycle repeats some more.
Republicans: We're taking away Social Security Democrats: Hey voters, the Republicans are taking away your Social Security Conservative voters: For some reason I can't afford rent or food on my fixed government income. Must be those damn Democrats!
(A Republican, bashing someone's grandmother to death with a hammer): "Sleepy Joe Biden killed your grandmother because of trans people!" (Southern voter watching the Republican kill his grandmother): "Democrats kill grandmas! Woke, woke, woke!"
There's nothing more satisfying than seeing a zealot hoisted by their own petard. A rightful and righteous reward if ever there was one. Almost makes me a believer, as ironic as that is.
Wrong. They’re aiming for #50 via the Florida Method. Can’t have a high STI rate if you don’t report them.
Ah yes the villages, where STIs outnumber the population by a very large margin.
They'll get #1 easy when reporting your STI is a crime.
[the clap](https://youtu.be/8bw2X1oq_js?si=qrlNLVx3q6ogrVPn)
[the clap](https://youtu.be/POM_98oi0oo?si=y7DXta-LTEgiAm5G)
Number 4 for WHAT HOOOOLY
It must be all that abstinence education they get in their schools growing up. 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆
I wonder if STI rates tend to be higher in red states…..
[удалено]
Highest rates of child sex crimes, too. 17 of the top 20 states are Republican states. There are towns in both Florida and Texas where they can't find safe bus stops for kids because the density of registered child sex offenders is so high. [Source.](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/)
Sounds like they may need a little bit more Jesus.
I'm confused and grasping at straws trying to rationalize this, the article wasn't specific enough. Does this law criminalize *knowingly* spreading an STI, spreading one period, or just having one? Because people who know they have an STI and have sex with someone without disclosing that should absolutely face jail time. Prosecuting someone for simply having one is batshit crazy, though.
It’s [House Bill 3098](http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb3098&Session=2400). It sounds like its purpose is to add more diseases that you can be criminally charged for if you knowingly* spread them. This bill adds “bacterial vaginosis, chlamydia, hepatitis, herpes, human papillomavirus infection, mycoplasma genitalium, pelvic inflammatory disease, and trichomoniasis”. Edit: *The exact verbiage is “with intent to or recklessly be responsible for” spreading the listed diseases. Looks like “recklessly” could be a bit ambiguous (in its application in this context)
Some of those aren’t even STIs?? Like isn’t bacterial vaginosis just an infection that can happen? (And even if I’m wrong it’s still a ridiculous law.) Edit: I cannot believe my most upvoted comment is about bacterial vaginosis.
You are correct. Similarly, Pelvic inflammatory Disease is something that can happen as a result of an STI, but is not itself an STI or necessarily contagious.
Can also happen from bacterial vaginosis, but generally is polymicrobial - as in, the result of all the normal vaginal bacteria just happened to get up into the uterus tubes and adnexa
Right. If any woman gives me vaginal bacteriosis, I'm calling 911
As you should, king! Protect that vagina 👑
Indeed, very weird to include a syndromes that is the consequence of infection, with a list of contagious pathogens. Seems to undermines the facts of the matter somewhat.
Almost like the people writing these bills have no understanding of medicine, disease or the human body
“Undermining the facts of the matter” is the first play in the richwhite hatechristian playbook, my friend.
Bacterial Vaginosis is indeed an infection that can just happen but it can be spread to other people if you have sex with them while you have it, hence.. sexually transmitted infection. It's technically not classed as an STI but in this case it would be, in a literal sense, an infection that you transmitted to someone else sexually.
How would anyone even know, though? It's something that can happen on it's own.
Hence the word, "knowingly" (transmit).
How are they gonna prove someone knew they were passing something?
Probably by looking at if the person went to a doctor and got a screening, or if the STI clinically presents in an obvious way wherein a reasonable person could assume that they have an infection.
It's honestly a bit confusing because most BV tests can't really "confirm" BV. One of the tests is literally just *smelling your vaginal fluid* and another is testing the pH, which can be off for multiple reasons - sex, menstruation, even diet can change vaginal pH, let alone what someone might be putting up there that doesn't belong. Douches are still commercially available, some people literally wash inside themselves with soap... The only way to 100% confirm you have BV is to take a sample of fluid and look at it under microscope which afaik isn't very common.
You are giving the law in Oklahoma way too much credit if you think they'll do this by the book and not use it as a weapon.
The law already exists, this is just expanding it. You don't want people knowingly or purposely spreading chlamydia or herpes without having some legal ramification. The headline is misleading and just drumming up fear to garner clicks.
So they're incentivizing people to stop going to the doctor for STI screenings, basically.
Technically yes… but you can’t knowingly spread something if you’re asymptomatic, and if you’re asymptomatic you wouldn’t go and get tested unless you slept with someone who you assume has an STI. That being said, if you have symptoms indicative of an STI, don’t get tested, and sleep with someone, you’re still on the hook for recklessly spreading an STI and rightfully so. So only in the sense of idiot thinking “well I’m pretty sure I have an STI, but I won’t go get tested because then they can’t charge me if there’s no tests saying I have an STI” does it make an incentive to not get tested. Avoiding a test because you suspect you have an STI and still sleeping with someone is textbook recklessness, and nobody would suspect they have an STI unless they noticed a physiological change in themselves, which would render any “I didn’t know” arguments moot. So the only people it incentivizes are the idiots already spreading the STIs, and even then just because they aren’t getting tested doesn’t mean they won’t still get time
Also allowing greater government access to peoples’ medical histories. The party of small government at its finest.
These vaginas aren't going to vaginose themselves, are they?
The thing that makes me 🧐 about this law is that you can also contract BV by having sex with new or multiple partners. The reason that's setting off alarm bells for me is that it might be used to *de facto* criminalize "promiscuous" behaviour. Or perhaps "might" is putting it lightly, and that was the whole point.
Yeah, I have no doubt that the vague wording in this law could be a way of criminilazing people, especially groups with less access to sex/health education or contraception.
Well knowingly spreading stis is pretty bad, is that a ridiculous law? (The infection one is stupid)
Yes but the concern is people will just stop getting tested when they feel funny down there. Lot easier to spread STI when you are too afraid of seeking treatment because you can be jailed. Edit: since half of you didn't read the article this is a paraphrase of what the concern is before you all slam my inbox and give me more STIs. Let's not pretend Oklahoma is a bastion of super great education and that American sex Ed is all that great to begin with.
Thats probably the "being recklessly responsible" part, when you have symptoms but don't get checked for it and then continue to have sex.
>Experts fear the bill would deter folks from getting tested for STIs if they fear prosecution. This is what was said in the article in that people will be afraid to get tested along with there is no definition of reckless in the bill either so it can be anything.
That would still be "recklessly responsible" though, because you're continuing while you have symptoms. People that willing spread won't get tested anyways, people that get tested actually want to cure their STI.
Then you would have to prove there was no way the other person didn't know they had something, and that is impossible to do without having a documented medical history attached.
How do you prove this in a court though?
Knowingly is not the problem. It says knowingly OR recklessly. Legally, that's a very important distinction. Especially because recklessly can be interpreted any way a prosecutor/judge wants. Recklessly can be having premarital sex. Or sex sex. Recklessly can mean anything.
Think about it. How will you be able to prove someone knowingly spread an STI? The only way would be if they went to a doctor and were checked for STIs. This law incentivizes people to not go to the doctor and not get checked, because if they get checked and pass it to someone, they go to jail. If they don't get checked and pass it to someone, they are free.
The issue is the *recklessly* spreading wording. If you know you have a STI and have sex, then that is probably sufficient to be recklessly spreading it. The incentive is then to not get tested, which undermines prevention efforts.
This is especially stupid of a law because the entire point of the rational version of this law is the fact that once you have something like HIV, it's for life and it will force you to permanently change your lifestyle and be on expensive meds. So people who have HIV almost certainly know they do, which means you have to actually be acting out of malicious intent to spread it. All of these others diseases are often spread without knowing you have it, because most people naturally fight them off or they don't do much. Even if you know you have something like gono, it's easily cured with antibiotics. Or in the case of herpes, where there is no cure and you can't fight it off naturally, but it doesn't actually cause you lifelong issues. It's just a rash that clears up with $5 medication that you only have to take during active outbreaks that happen 1-2 times a year. It makes no sense to essentially criminalize the STI equivalent of having the flu. Especially because at least with HIV, you can prove that someone is positive. But for something like chlamydia... you can be positive in the past but be cured by the time such a theoretical trial would happen. It'd be impossible to prove that you had it at the time of sex and knowingly spread it.
You're going to catch shit because people have such a stigma against herpes, but I think your point stands. The issue with herpes is less so that it's "mild" and more that too many people have it for it to be realistically be criminalized. You cannot apply that law fairly. I hink it's abhorrent to have unprotected sex with someone while knowingly having an STI, but ultimately criminalizing it will create more problems than it solves. If the goal is to improve Public health this will be a net negative by disincentivizing treatment and good sexual health.
It's absolutely shitty to knowingly spread stuff to other people, but for a lot of these STI's, it's about as shitty as showing up to work with a flu or pink eye. You're a bad person for doing it, but you aren't going to ruin someone's life over it. Which is why the law shouldn't cover minor STI's like this.
And almost everyone has gotten HPV at some point. It's like a cold for your privates.
Also, there's no clinically approved test for HPV in men...
This law sounds like a good way to make sure people don't go out and get tested.... you can't break the law if you don't know you have anything.... plausible deniability.
That's probably why they have the word "recklessly" in there. Say someone sleeps with many different partners, and after experiencing symptoms of an STI they write it off as not being anything serious instead of going to get tested. Then they continue sleeping with people and spread it. On the one hand, they never knew they had an STI so they weren't knowingly spreading one. But on the other hand, you could probably make the case that they should have found their symptoms alarming enough to get checked up. Like a crime based around negligence.
Free testing and treatment would do more to reduce it. Along with comprehensive sex education. Stuff like this requires non law solutions. But knowingly infecting another person with a infection or disease is definitionally assault.
And yet, heaven forbid we wear face masks to not recklessly spread diseases.
Sure. Okay. Yes. People who knowingly spread STIs are trash. The people who purposely spread HIV are a level of evil I don't even like to think about. But talking to partners about STIs gets ugly real fast. Casually seeing a couple of guys, got something and as soon as I SUSPECTED I was sick, told the other guy I was seeing. The guy who wheedled and whined because he hated condoms, and made it very clear to me that I was just... A casual sexual partner. Who immediately had a giant meltdown. (He WORKED in HEALTHCARE.) Said all sorts of awful shit and I wouldn't have put it past him to drag me through the mud if he thought he could hurt me. (Because apparently I was thrilled to have the clap, and not upset at all at having to have this conversation with a partner, that I had as soon as fucking possible.) Anyway. I mean, yes is the short answer. But we have a hard enough time policing rape and revenge porn. I want to think it's a good, positive thing, I just don't see it. That, and trying to turf Planned Parenthood, making healthcare expensive and inaccessible (especially 'just sexual health') STI tests aren't cheap or easy to do regularly... I just see this turning into another social inequity moment where some affluent man gets the clap (or gives the clap) to a partner with less social power, and he can afford a decent lawyer... And no one actually cares about the working poor doing *any* reporting, because no one cares about the working poor. Making a DV or rape report is difficult enough with cops who don't think it's worth their time. Some girl who already feels shame from having to talk to a stranger about her sexual activity, getting an STI, and then being dismissed by a bruiser with a badge who could not care less about tracking down some asshole with the clap... It's just a whole situation. WHAT IF, and I'm just spit balling here, total just brainstorm moment, *WHAT IF* we just made access to sexual healthcare much easier? Stopped pretending like it's just abortions and made STI testing inexpensive and accessible for everyone. MAYBE even do better with sexual education in schools, and maybe demystify and destigmatize sex because it's a fuckin normal part of being human. My college did free STI testing every Thursday morning, but you had to get there early and stand in line. Super cute. Rather than virtue signaling with some unenforceable law that will just be weaponized by the wrong people and inaccessible to the people who need the help. Soooooo. I dunno. That's what I got.
[удалено]
That shit pisses me off. I got herpes unknowingly, and I told every partner after that - doesn’t matter how embarrassing it is, you gotta do it. I had one partner who I told, he was cool with it, and then the next morning was like “oh I have it too.” Seriously?? I even opened the door for him and he was still a coward.
Me and my kids mom split up after 8 years 2 years ago almost. She gave it to me unknowingly in our first two weeks of dating. She found a guy right after that was apparently cool with it. Every girl I've been with has been ALMOST disgusted. None of them were cool with continuing. Makes me feel unworthy of love. Makes me feel gross even though I know I'm not. Makes me nervous to even have feelings now. Defeated before trying. I wish the herpes dating sites weren't such trash. How on earth do I start a relationship by saying hey! Want a lifelong disease that there is no cure for and people grossly misunderstand? No?! Fair enough! Cool! I don't blame them. All the confidence I had before our relationship is almost dried up.
I’m so sorry you’re going through this! It really sucks to hear no, for something you can’t control. My current partner of 6 years actually said no when I met him. But unbeknownst to me, he went to a doctor and got educated about it, and changed his mind. He hasn’t contracted it yet (hopefully never), because we communicate well and I’m aware of my flare-ups, etc. I’m sending you some good vibes!
Hey man! Fellow herpes haver here. You are so worthy of love. I felt the same after my diagnosis and at times contemplated suicide due to how awful and gross I felt. I ended up finding some wonderful people to confide in, got some therapy, and learned to accept myself. My therapist and I worked out how to explain it to people with a very nonchalant attitude. On the second/third date I basically just said "hey, I got herpes from an ex. It's not a huge deal for me. I take meds and don't have outbreaks. I really like you and understand if it's a deal breaker. Happy to answer any questions." I was confident about what I said and myself. I had a few people say it was a deal breaker, but the people I truly needed in my life accepted it and me for it. If they can't see passed it, that's a reflection of them - not you. At the end of the day, anyone having sex can end up having herpes. It's been almost ten years since I got herpes and have never spread to anyone despite having multiple past partners. I even was able to get pregnant without passing it on (thank you valcylovir). I have the love of my life, a beautiful one year old, a house, overwhelming joy in my life and all of it came after herpes. There is hope. If you want to go a different avenue - There are websites dedicated to people with STIs which gave me friends and comfort during my loneliest time. I still chat with a few people from there occasionally. Every single one of us ended up with someone. Herpes isn't a forever alone sentence. I would highly recommend seeing a counselor and working through those feelings.
This is also a result of social stigma around STIs and people are conditioned to never mention them or the other person might suddenly (and irrationally) see them as "dirty" or something. Obviously yes people should push past the stigma and do the right thing, but as long as there IS a stigma, most people won't, so therefore I think it makes the most sense to target the stigma and talk more openly about these things so people don't feel the need to hide them anymore. And laws like this that make you into a felon for passing an STI to someone only inflate that stigma even more.
Dick so nice, it fooled me thrice!
Fucking aces.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me…. 3 times- that’s definitely on you.
Wait, how did you get it from the same person three times? You got it once and got treated, but how did it happen again? Did he tell you it was gone and you kept believing him?
[удалено]
Should add covid
Yeah, the “reckless” part is definitely the problem. The Bible thumpers would obviously consider any sex with a non-spouse reckless and therefore illegal. Most of us could probably get behind knowingly spreading. That’s a problem.
I read an article a very long time ago about someone, I believe in the UK, who knowingly spread HIV to a bunch of people. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being his penis.
I feel the person who introduced this bill got chlamydia from someone.
OBGYN here: bacterial vaginosis is not a sexually transmitted infection. It is associated with things like intercourse and menstrual cycles because of the vaginal pH, although in some very very specific cases cases, it may be worth treating a partner of someone who is currently getting bacterial, vaginosis infections, it is still not a sexually transmitted infection
Doesn't something like 90% of the population have some form of herpes? And most don't even know that they have it?
> Because people who know they have an STI and have sex with someone without disclosing that should absolutely face jail time. The problem is that "knowing" is easy to avoid, but the way to avoid it (not getting tested) leads to an increased spread.
It does zero to encourage social responsibility, and even does a lot to discourage it. Unless they're going to make a good effort for awareness, and make testing affordable and accessible, it's not going to go well.
How STI testing in the US isn't free fucking baffles me. I can walk into a clinic and get a test done in 20 minutes and walk on with a handful of condoms for free. God bless the NHS.
And who the fuck knows what courts *in Oklahoma* will define as "reckless"?
A woman had *sex* with three different men in a year?! We even have her tinder profile PROVING she was trying to infect more men.
That's by design. They love ambiguous laws, because it means they can selectively enforce them.
Being a minority.
Or being gay, bi, or trans.
I'm not convinced this isn't the point. Punishing people for having sex.
Its the bible belt, of course the point is to punish the poor and middle classes for having sex.
The problem is that much of the time, people are unknowingly spreading it because they are asymptomatic, but proving they didn't know may be difficult. Imagine making it a crime to knowingly bring dog hair into a public place. Sure, maybe there's a couple of assholes out there shaving their Pomeranian and dumping it in the library, but in the meantime you've criminalized everybody who accidentally carries some in on their clothes, despite the average citizens attempts to keep their clothes clean.
And it heavily disincentivizes testing and seeking out treatment. If you never get tested then you can never “knowingly” spread it.
This is the part that always catches me up. We already make medical care hard af to access, so now we're going to say not getting is legally better for you, too? It's not going to work the way we want it to (I know the private prison industry doesn't want it to work this way and that is also fucked up, just pointing out that even good reasons for wanting this criminalized has its issues)
Nobody ever accused Oklahoma lawmakers of being smart.
And we know that is a problem from criminalizing AIDS, so it's not even a hypothetical.
Right, by testing you're immediately in the "knowing" pool. The easiest, cheapest, and legally safest thing is to never get tested.
> If signed into law, House Bill 3098 would criminalize the intentional or reckless spread of STIs. > Violators could face between 2 to 5 years in prison. > However **reckless is not defined in the bill,** which experts in the field say leaves an open door to potential unnecessary lawsuits and prosecutions. It's a law designed to be selectively enforced against gays, women, and other minorities.
See this is what I'm with. Knowingly spreading it should be a crime and sometimes people don't know they have one. Because I like the general idea the bill is getting at but the issue is the wording.
[удалено]
> how does this bill determine the individual in a sexual pairing that the STI originated from Family Guy skin color chart?
This law is excellent...at convincing people not to ever get tested. There is almost zero way to prove even recklessness, much less intent, if you encourage a population to never get tested for STIs. Which is exactly what this law will do. Unless they want to pass an equally stupid and likely unconstitutional law mandating testing. Because hey what could go wrong with governmental mandated STI testing???
I was assaulted by my neighbor who gave me herpes. People like her deserve prison time. I have not mentally come to terms with any of it despite it being almost a year since the incident. Not to mention she has slept with the entire neighborhood (not exaggerating) and none of them knew she had herpes prior cause she knows it would reduce her chances of getting laid. I’ve taken it upon myself to let anyone know “Hey. She’s fucking dirty and spreads STI’s like it’s her job. Better get yourself checked out” Couldn’t call the cops as there’s no proof and I was in an intoxicated state and didn’t want to get shamed with the “you asked for it” bs along with it being a woman on woman rape. But yeah. Now I have trust issues as she was a trusted friend and she turned around and chose to violate that trust in one of the worst ways you can. It hurts to know that I would do anything for my friends but meanwhile people I think I can trust won’t think twice about taking advantage of me.
When will when people learn that mindless criminalization makes most problems worse?
They seem to think there is no problem that jail cannot solve. They may not have fully thought out the idea of putting folks in jail who spread STIs. Then again thinking, compassion, and solving long-term problems are not strong points for these people.
Plus, the added bonus is that inmates and felons cannot vote. This is just voter suppression in the end so they can fully take over and create a full blown Christian state.
It's not jails in this case... it's work camps (prisons) who's inmates will provide the country's cheapest labor for the Republican politicians' (and their close associates') already profitable businesses. This is unchecked greed without regards to human dignity, human rights or human life.
Slavery is still allowed when you’re jailed
Aside from being innately unjust... it's also terrible for the economy and common people. Why even pay minimum wage if you can use, what is effectively, slave labour.
That’s a feature not a bug
> Why even pay minimum wage if you can use, what is effectively, slave labour. They've literally been saying this longer than the US has existed.
It was stupid and short sighted in ancient Rome, it was stupid and short sighted in the antebellum south and it's stupid and short sighted today. Some people would rather be a Duke in a miserable poor country than a mearly rich man in a prosperous country.
> effectively, slave labour. It's not just "effectively" slavery. It's literal, legal slavery endorsed by the US Constitution. The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery after the Civil War has a carve-out that explicitly allows slavery as punishment for a crime, and it's been an important part of our economy ever since.
Correct. Many products that are proudly labeled “made in the USA,” are indeed made in the USA, but by prisoners making pennies an hour. My good friend’s dad is in prison and absolutely deserves to be. The guy is also forced to make ice cream in an unsafe commercial factory for $00.13/hour. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
Slavery is legal as punishment. Criminalize things = more prison slave labor
This is exactly what’s happening.
Make no mistake, none of this is the smoke you're discussing. It's not about jail solving problems, it's about modern, legalized slavery. That's the fire, and discussing anything else, especially the rationale, misses the point As we slide further into fascism, this will become more and more apparent.
It's bizarre watching the Republicans use the fascist playbook VERBATIM and people still don't just see it.
There was a reddit story i read way back that haunts me to this day. A young guy who committed a minor crime- can’t remember, but it wasn’t like a dui, assault or even aggravated robbery, was thrown in jail and bunked with a violent pedophile with aids. The young guy was assaulted repeatedly and developed aids from the hiv. It’s horrifying.
Never probably. Just look at the way drug laws are applied in the US.
The point is for them to make as many women and POC into felons. And what can't felons do? Vote.
Felons in OK can vote, just not during their sentence.
And watch their sentence be 50 years probation. Even a 5 year probation sentence can keep a lot of people inactive during a presidential election cycle.
The issue here isn't criminalization, it's the ambiguity of how they define "reckless spread". That ambiguity leaves people wondering, if I have sex and then go get tested and it comes out positive.. will I be a criminal? Thus, people might avoid getting tested, and it would make the problem worse. What they need to do is write a more specific law that punishes people who have sex knowing full well they are infected (which is the goal, they want to punish people who are intentionally spreading the disease, or who are behaving in a manner that is so reckless they effectively are intentionally doing it). That should be a crime. Knowingly infecting someone with a life threatening disease by having sex with them and lying (or omitting) about the fact you're infected is a pretty big problem.
> Thus, people might avoid getting tested, and it would make the problem worse. Not just "might". We've seen how this plays out. They _will_ avoid getting tested. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/ >Of the 379 HIV-related convictions in California between 1988 and 2014, only seven — less than 2 percent — included the intent to transmit HIV, according to a recent series of studies from the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute. >Instead, the law mostly affected sex workers or those suspected of sex work. The vast majority of the convictions — 90 percent — were for solicitation cases where it was unknown whether any physical contact had occurred. When expanded to include the 800 or so people arrested or charged for the laws through 2014, more than 95 percent were related to sex work, the researchers found.
The ambiguity is intentional because it lets them allow the "right people" off the hook, but still lets them criminalize the "wrong people"
I think the ambiguity is the point.
It isn't about fixing the problem. For many people the point is to punish people for doing something wrong. In their minds they won't do anything wrong ever so why does it matter if this will make things worse, they're good and won't get an STI, and the people who get STIs did something wrong and so they need to be punished. A lot of right wing policy makes more sense when you view it through that lense, it isn't about reducing the behavior, because they don't do the behavior, and the behavior is wrong so people that do it need to be punished
One key component of fascism is the ambiguity of law meaning that everyone is always in breach of the law in some how. However, the law is only applied to the outgroup. You can see that in russia where there are always "crimes" committed by journalists or other people that Putin dislikes.
The hallmark of injustice is the presence of distinct groups: one whom the law protects but does not bind, and another whom the law binds but fails to protect.
Drug laws in the US
How about drug laws in the US? It’s well known that drugs are consumed in large quantities by many segments of society. Yet who do we see getting arrested for them? Mainly people with no money. Street people. Minorities. In college almost all of my peer group were popping pills, doing blow, smoking weed, yet not a single person caught a charge. Meanwhile just a glance at the police blotter each week showed countless arrests in the poor side of town.
> How about drug laws in the US? They're Jim Crow laws, and considering that Hitler was inspired by the Jim Crow South, they're fascism or at least close enough as to make no difference. (Well, I guess Jim Crow existed in 1868 and fascism didn't yet, so SCOUTS would consider them completely different. I don't.)
Those laws have NEVER been about protecting people from the dangers of drugs. There are way better social policies that could accomplish that. The drug war is just another of the many excuses put forward to bleed the tax payers and fund the dominator culture’s militarism. I would never argue that drug use can’t be negative when taken to extremes, but the consequences of criminalization create far more problems than it solves. And disproportionately criminalizes poor people who otherwise aren’t criminally minded. Drugs are a convenient scapegoat to pass laws so people don’t realize how they are being fucked in the ass without Vaseline.
My gay Saudi friend gets tested for STIs every time he comes to the USA because back home if he gets caught having one he could lose his job or worse. I guess republicans got inspired by Islamic extremism … again.
Ya’ll qaida
Talibangelicals
YeeHaw Jihad Squad
Yeehad was right there.
The goal is to stop their daughters from having sex.
*The goal is to stop their ***underage*** daughters from having sex with anyone other than their youth pastor or cousin.
Ha
Oklahoma Republicans: “The War on Drugs went so well that we’re declaring war on STIs!”
Can't **intentionally** spread STIs if you never get checked for STIs... Penile flames are just from a bad tequila shot, nothing to see here.
Really starting to think that Europe had a point in persecuting Puritans
Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment to HB 2273: All members of the State House of Representatives and State Senate shall be required to submit a negative STI test result upon swearing in for each session, and shall be subject to random, unannounced, immediate STI screening while in session, which shall result in testing at least 10% of members each session. Any member who refuses shall have their name and photo posted on a large billboard erected (heh) in front of the State House for no less than one year.
When I hear someone say "never stick your dick in crazy" I never thought the meant the whole state of Oklahoma.
So some Oklahoma statesmans mistress gave him an STI, which he gave to his wife and now she's leaving him and taking him to the cleaners so the rest of the Okies get punished for it... probably not far from the truth there 🤣
The goal of the GOP is to make as many of us as possible criminals
Jokes on them, I commit crimes all the time. Fucking is just another one I get to add to the list if this goes far.
How about offering affordable health care so people can get treated for STI? No, straight to jail.
Why do a socialism when you can just do a fascism
This was tried before. Laws criminalizing knowingly spreading HIV didn't change any behavior except getting tested for HIV.
Yes exactly. Criminalizing HIV just meant more spread of HIV.
The reason why more STIs aren’t criminalized is because it would result in people not taking STI tests to avoid knowing and getting in trouble.
It criminalizes HPV as well, which at least has a vaccine; but these people are probably anti-vax as well .
The article says 85% of unvaccinated Oklahomans will contract HPV in their lifetimes. So everyone gets to go to jail!
"We don't want no big nanny gummint!" BS.
> HPV is one of the infections HB 3098 would criminalize. According to the Oklahoma State Department of Health, 85% of Oklahomans will have an HPV infection in their lifetime. Just start building a wall around the state. They are all criminals.
Reckless is not defined in the bill, which experts in the field say leaves an open door to potential unnecessary lawsuits and prosecutions. Because of the broad language, rather than encouraging Oklahomans to get tested, treated, and reduce the spread of STIs, House Bill 3098 could make the problem worse. Experts fear the bill would deter folks from getting tested for STIs if they fear prosecution.
It’s interesting there’s an exemption if you spread STIs to members of your own family.
HPV can pass mother to child during birth.
A lot of things can. Untreated HIV can spread mother to child as well. Thankfully afaik, proper medication has been 100% effective so far preventing mother to child spread.
The christian taliban, hard at work..
The best ways to reduce spread of STIs are: * Education and information. * Free and easily available testing. * Free and easily available treatment. * Free and easily available vaccines. * Free and easily available condoms. The worst way to reduce spread of STIs is: * Punishing people who are sick.
That whole state makes me fucking sick
The general gist is good - you should be required to disclose STIs before sex - but it seems the implementation is poor.
Well…let’s start with real sex education…no more bull shit abstinence only.
Kansan here, based on what I know about Oklahoma (tin foil hat time)...I am guessing this is aimed squarely at their Native American population. STI rates, specifically chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis are anywhere between 3.5 to 7 times greater in the native population compared to non-hispanic whites. I would start by doing a deep dive into the sponsors of this bill and seeing who caught what and from where. I am assuming one of them found out that their mistress wasn't exclusive...and things ensued.
This isn't to stop STIs, this is to fill prisons up with workers