The right to sexual privacy? (experience, marriage, sex, diseases)

[Faint]

Sexual Disclosure: How Much Info You Legally Have To Share
The California Supreme Court is reportedly set to review how much information sexual partners must reveal to each other about past high risk sexual activity, according to a published report.

The court will hear a woman's claim that her otherwise healthy husband infected her with HIV. She is seeking damages of an undisclosed amount.

The California Supreme Court will consider among other things, how much a spouse or partner is entitled to know about the other's sexual history in order to safeguard against infection.

Legal observers have said that the case is important because the court will have to consider both health concerns and the right to sexual privacy, according to reports.
The case was set to begin oral arguments in Los Angeles yesterday. A ruling is due within 90 days.

Do you think sexual privacy in this case is more important than legal requirements for disclosure? Do you think this would help anything?

[Buttercup]

I think it's best to disclose your previous sexual experiences to your new partner but if you have contracted HIV, you may not know that fact until some time later.

How can you be held liable for something you didn't know? How could they prove you knew?

[michel]

The California Supreme Court is reportedly set to review how much information sexual partners must reveal to each other about past high risk sexual activity, according to a published report.

So, if I understand correctly, the Court in California decides what consenting adults should tell each other before having a sexual relationship ?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Faint

Do you think sexual privacy in this case is more important than legal requirements for disclosure? Do you think this would help anything?

In this case, I hope that she squeezes the sleazy snake scrupulously.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by michel

So, if I understand correctly, the Court in California decides what consenting adults should tell each other before having a sexual relationship ?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially in a marriage relationship. If you're having sex with others - which can usually be assumed if one isn't married - then it puts partners at risk. What we do affects other people!

[michel]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially in a marriage relationship. If you're having sex with others - which can usually be assumed if one isn't married - then it puts partners at risk. What we do affects other people!

Wow, talk about a Nanny state!

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by michel

So, if I understand correctly, the Court in California decides what consenting adults should tell each other before having a sexual relationship ?

The crux of the case is going to be "When they had unprotected sex, did the husband know he had HIV?" If that answer is "Yes", then the wife has legitimate claim.

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet, and IMHO "sexual privacy" (if there is such a thing) ceases the moment you learn you have a sexually transmitted disease. Like A_E said, what we do affects other people.

[kevmicsmi]

The case was set to begin oral arguments in Los Angeles yesterday

A perfect way to argue the merits of this case

[Buttercup]

I know if I could get ahold of doctor's or clinic records that my proved my lover had previously known about his HIV,...I would battle it all the way to the supreme court if I had to! It's my life he would be messing with.

In the case of potentially fatally transmitted sexual diseases I do think some kind of legal protection should come forth. I'm just not sure how it should be worded however.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by michel

Wow, talk about a Nanny state!

It's simply a state where people are responsible for their actions.