i'll be explicit, because i know i'm right about this and i don't care if it upsets people. if you want to stand up for what's right, you have to take unpopular positions sometimes.

if i was in the middle of something, and i asked if they were hiv, and i was told they were but are on antivirals, would i stop, even if a condom was involved? yeah. immediately - forcefully, and violently, if necessary.

so, is that information that is necessary to provide in determining consent? it sure would be, for me. therefore, is withholding that information a type of rape? it is. i would certainly feel violated. and, it doesn't matter if the person is taking retroviral drugs, or if the risk of transmission is negligible - consent still depends on the absence of any possibility of transmission. i would never consent, under any circumstance, to relations with somebody that is positive, whether they are on retrovirals and wearing a condom or not.

and, what is the counter-argument to this?

"if i disclosed, they might say no."

you're fucking right that i would say no. and, what do you lose from that?

obviously, if you cared at all about me or my feelings, you would disclose - and if that means we don't fuck on that night, you'd take it as an acceptable loss.

the only argument for non-disclosure reduces to the viewpoint that an orgasm, however fleeting, is more important than the health and consent of the person you're fucking.

and, that is rape culture.

i'm not sexually active, but i've long realized that i'm the one that needs to ask because the vast majority of people on this planet are irresponsible cretins.

the sad fact is that you cannot expect people to have the common courtesy to disclose, if it means foregoing the possibility of an orgasm. that's the sad reality of how people think in this utilitarian society. that's their cost benefit analysis.

if you have hiv then you should not be sexually active at all, and i'm sorry if you're too stupid to figure that out. but, i guess you were dumb enough to catch it in the first place, right...

"What you're talking about here is a vulnerable, marginalized group of people who are going to be forced to go around volunteering to anyone with whom they're going to have sexual contact, that they belong to that vulnerable, marginalized group,"

yeah. that's exactly what they law should say: that they have a responsibility to full disclosure, at all times. it's a basic moral principle.

they have aids! they shouldn't be having sexual contact at all!

the fucking retards on this planet....

"it's just a mild case of hiv."

i don't think that the question of whether the rapist is taking retroviral drugs should be of much consideration when determining the charges that are being laid. hiv is not a spectrum disease, and the risks of contracting it should not be weighed like you would play odds at a casino. any risk of transmission at all - no matter how negligent - should be considered equivalent, and come with equivalent sentencing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/hiv-positive-status-to-factor-into-regina-rapist-s-sentence-but-not-criminal-charge-1.4216714

i've argued it should basically be the same as alcohol, too, but the age thing is the exception - it should be set younger. and, let's think it through.

what the legislation is (supposedly) geared around is the idea that kids are smoking because it's easier to get pot than it is to get alcohol because, despite the legal wording, marijuana is not currently a controlled substance. the solution is that if you control the distribution then usage rates will decrease amongst kids.

it's probably true for kids in the 14-18 range.

but, that implies that they'll need to find other drugs - like meth-sold-as-mdma - because they can't access pot.

so, do you legalize mdma then? well, i actually think you should, because it's safe in pure form but extremely dangerous in the forms you find on the street. even a lot of the kids that are walking out of parties without any visible harm are only vaguely aware of what they're actually taking, and the longer term damage that it might be doing.

but, then what? do you legalize psilocybin? well, psilocybin isn't that dangerous, either.

but, you start getting in blurrier areas when you get to the next iteration. if you end up legalizing lsd in the end, the age should be relatively high. and, i'll never support legalizing opioids or cocaine - although i wouldn't mind seeing more potent caffeine options on the market.

the point is that you're just kicking the can down the road, here. at some point you need to realize that kids are just going to move to the next drug if they can't get the one you're cutting off access to. it's a demand issue; and demand creates supply.

trudeau's argument is really just supply-side economics, and is flawed for the same reason that any other piece of supply-side economics is.

a better idea is to lower the age and teach kids how to use it responsibly, like they do with alcohol in france. it is, after all, not use that should be of concern but abuse. and, the concern should really be in finding ways to gear marijuana policy around tactics to stop them from getting into the harder stuff, which includes alcohol.

http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2017/07/21/ontarios-age-of-majority-for-pot-same-as-booze