Mandatory tattoos for people with an STD?

[midnight_angel628]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Best solution is making it a criminal offense to NOT disclose that someone has an STD prior to sexual relations, facing prison time for failure to disclose.

It can be parallel to my idea. But then you need a judge to referee the "he said she said" game. confused

[Mr John Mitchell]

midnight_angel628

Mr John Mitchell

midnight_angel628

Mr John Mitchell

The only way that could ever be considered is if it was done only to people who were found to be spreading disease intentionally.
Because marking people just for having an illness may actually harm them. They may be treated differently, discriminated against, and maybe even bullied or harmed just for having the illness, even though they probably do their damnedest to be safe.

The best thing to do is to be aware of the potential risks of sex and take appropriate precautions.

Read the topic, and not just the title. Tattoo would be below the waist, visible only by nudity. And stop taboo'ing the condom. That's what you mean by "appropriate precautions" right? Then just say that.

I read the topic. I see I need to be clearer.
When I say appropriate precautions I don't just mean the condom. I am not afraid of the word. I mean getting tested, knowing the person you are with has been tested, treating sex generally as the risky activity that it is and yes, using a condom. It was just a blanket term for being safe.

And I know that you meant a small inconspicuous tattoo in a private place, but there are things that you aren't taking into account like public showers, skinny dipping, nude beaches, getting pants'd, wardrobe malfunctions, revealing clothing/swimsuits.
It means always having something to hide. Always having to be ashamed. Can you imagine how degrading and painful it would be to go in for one of those tattoos?
And plenty of people are born with diseases that can be sexually transmitted. So must they, rather than being careful in their own private way, be forced to go through school, including gym and swim classes, worrying about being outed by a physical mark?

I know that it is an idea based in the interest of public safety, but in my opinion the cost is too great. Therefore I respectfully disagree. It is easy enough thing to use a condom until both parties are tested/ trust one another enough to take their word on a clean bill of health.

So.. you're suggesting people just be more responsible? Again, the human variable is not a reliable constant. Something needs to change. We need an idea. People like you constantly strive for the conversation of the current, but the current sucks and we need to stop STD's from spreading. Do you have any alternative solutions? Because relying on people to be responsible is as dumb as letting a drunk person drive. Promiscuity happens. One night stands.

You have this notion that people still hold stigmas on STDs as if it were the 90's. And while I miss the 90's, times have changed and a lot of stigmas have been removed from various things (homosexuality, mental illness, handicaps, abuse victims, etc) you're weighing the "shame" aspect on having a hidden mark all on the minority of immature shamers out there. It's not a tramp-stamp, it's just somebody's very small representation of their medical records in the form of an icon or symbol.

And those born with STD's will need to get this tattoo as well in order to automatically warn partners. It changes nothing about their condition, and if you're arguing that it's not fair that they got an STD then close your eyes and ask God why it happened, leave my good idea out of it.

the last I am really gonna say on the topic is that you can be as high minded as you like, but that won't change the fact that there would be stigma no matter how enlightened you think our society has become. Things haven't changed that much. Once kids learned about the marks in health class the next time everyone was in the locker room, anyone with the mark would be tormented. That is just how people are.

You can't violate peoples' civil rights just because you are too lazy/careless to protect yourself.

[village midget]

midnight_angel628

village midget

midnight_angel628

It's not entirely a c**k-block, because it could also be a warning to the non-diseased participant to simply use protection.

Why doesn't the "non-diseased participant" use protection anyway?

What's ******** wrong with you?

It feels better bare.

Grow up.

[Faoladh Coimirceoir]

village midget

midnight_angel628

village midget

midnight_angel628

It's not entirely a c**k-block, because it could also be a warning to the non-diseased participant to simply use protection.

Why doesn't the "non-diseased participant" use protection anyway?

What's ******** wrong with you?

It feels better bare.

Grow up.

If you want to have unprotected sex, it's your responsibility to make sure you don't get an STD, not the other person's. It's your own body and having unprotected sex with anyone is a risk for an STD that will only be your fault for contracting.

[Misty_Mystix]

A really dehumanizing idea that violates people's bodily integrity, stigmatizes people who are have or have had STDs and is when you think about it, ******** stupid. This idea would only discourage people from getting tested, discourage people from wearing condoms if they see people without the tattoo and tattoos can be covered with make up or another tattoo.

Not all STDs are equal and most of them are treatable and curable. If you have sex, more than likely you have STDs like herpes (which is harmless) and one of the hundreds of harmless strands of HPV, both which your immune system eventually clears up on its own and you never even knew you had it. Even HIV the most infamous and feared STD of all is no longer a death sentence, but is a life sentence of expensive treatment. People who are properly treated for HIV can have the virus cleared from their system in a way that doesn't spread the infection to others who have sex with them.

[village midget]

the_wolfman14

village midget

midnight_angel628

village midget

midnight_angel628

It's not entirely a c**k-block, because it could also be a warning to the non-diseased participant to simply use protection.

Why doesn't the "non-diseased participant" use protection anyway?

What's ******** wrong with you?

It feels better bare.

Grow up.

If you want to have unprotected sex, it's your responsibility to make sure you don't get an STD, not the other person's. It's your own body and having unprotected sex with anyone is a risk for an STD that will only be your fault for contracting.

Exactly, why are you preaching to the converted?

[Faoladh Coimirceoir]

village midget

the_wolfman14

village midget

midnight_angel628

village midget

midnight_angel628

It's not entirely a c**k-block, because it could also be a warning to the non-diseased participant to simply use protection.

Why doesn't the "non-diseased participant" use protection anyway?

What's ******** wrong with you?

It feels better bare.

Grow up.

If you want to have unprotected sex, it's your responsibility to make sure you don't get an STD, not the other person's. It's your own body and having unprotected sex with anyone is a risk for an STD that will only be your fault for contracting.

Exactly, why are you preaching to the converted?

Sorry for the misused quote, wanted them to see both arguments at the same time.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

midnight_angel628

Old Blue Collar Joe

Best solution is making it a criminal offense to NOT disclose that someone has an STD prior to sexual relations, facing prison time for failure to disclose.

It can be parallel to my idea. But then you need a judge to referee the "he said she said" game. confused

There's a lot of he said/she said s**t out there. Hell, if the person with the STD doesn't have a signed contract, then they are not getting the benefit of the doubt.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Old Blue Collar Joe

midnight_angel628

Old Blue Collar Joe

Best solution is making it a criminal offense to NOT disclose that someone has an STD prior to sexual relations, facing prison time for failure to disclose.

It can be parallel to my idea. But then you need a judge to referee the "he said she said" game. confused

There's a lot of he said/she said s**t out there. Hell, if the person with the STD doesn't have a signed contract, then they are not getting the benefit of the doubt.

So every time they want to ******** they have to get a signature, then take it to the notary public, and then get their sexin' on?

[midnight_angel628]

Mr John Mitchell

You can't violate peoples' civil rights just because you are too lazy/careless to protect yourself.

No civil rights are being violated, and yes, we can apply consequences to those who are careless. Ever heard of a DUI? If you were deceptively handed an STD, you would understand.

[midnight_angel628]

Lilith_Lilium

A really dehumanizing idea that violates people's bodily integrity, stigmatizes people who are have or have had STDs and is when you think about it, ******** stupid. This idea would only discourage people from getting tested, discourage people from wearing condoms if they see people without the tattoo and tattoos can be covered with make up or another tattoo.

Not all STDs are equal and most of them are treatable and curable. If you have sex, more than likely you have STDs like herpes (which is harmless) and one of the hundreds of harmless strands of HPV, both which your immune system eventually clears up on its own and you never even knew you had it. Even HIV the most infamous and feared STD of all is no longer a death sentence, but is a life sentence of expensive treatment. People who are properly treated for HIV can have the virus cleared from their system in a way that doesn't spread the infection to others who have sex with them.

I know there are ways to reduce the risk of transmitting but your counter-argument here is based off of the logic that we should just trust people.

I'm talking about permanent STD's and you seem to be arguing more about how STD's shouldn't be permanent rather than the small hidden tattoo itself. Look, I agree, it sucks and it's unfortunate that some people get what could be a death sentence... but wouldn't the world be beautiful if we never had to worry about any of this to begin with? It could just be a blip in history where we look back at that time where we had to mark the ones with diseases to prevent it from spreading. A dark time, but the future is clean and nobody complains or regrets it, except for the extreme conservatives. But luckily, conservatives are good at dealing with changes because they'll eventually love them. You'll adjust. Don't worry wink

[black_wing_angel]

midnight_angel628

black_wing_angel

Only 3 STDs that I can think of, are actually permanent. HIV, Herpes, and Hepatitis C. All the rest are readily curable.

Also, the difference between a person with a disease, and the other people you listed above, is criminal activity. Having an STD is not a crime.

It's not a punishment. It's just a flag.

To the people "flagged", it's a punishment.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Only as hazardous as they are made to be. Unless you're having contact with their bodily fluids, they are of no hazard to you. And just to protect privacy and health in one fell swoop, we legally require all bodily fluids to be assumed potentially hazardous.

That doesn't affect the excuse to deny application of a marking. I said the tattoo would be placed in a spot only seen by those who are to be sexually active. Like below the waist, under the clothes, even hidden by a bikini or speedo. It's not a chastity belt, people can still have sex with a tattoo on. There's no interference of privacy.

That's still morally unjustifiable. What about people who have religious convictions against tattoos? What about people who just don't want one?

You're trampling on peoples' bodily integrity, for a safety net that is unnecessary.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Because what could be better for someone who's already in self-loathing misery about their infection, than public shaming them?

Bringing others down with them.

I seriously doubt that's as big a threat as you want to make it sound. Most of the time, infection is spread during the stage when the host is unaware of their infection. They don't show up immediately. People don't typically opt to spread disease, intentionally. And we have laws against it, anyway. Punish the offenders.

black_wing_angel

Removed tattoos don't actually disappear. They stay behind as a scar. That's why people encourage a covering, than a laser removal. And if you just happen to have a tattoo in a place where others have "biohazard" warnings, well.....that's going to raise some unnecessary questions...

The beauty of this tattoo, since I said it would be black, the tattoo itself would be a coverup on top of anything else. The only excuse here would be "but I promise to inform my partner!" if we want to talk about ethics, believing liars would be irresponsible. There might be like one or two people in the world that has completely covered their lower area in tattoos, has an STD, and wants to hide it the fact that they do for the sake of not wearing protection. Be real.

Assumes all / most infected people are intent to spread the disease intentionally.

Tells me to "be real".

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Not a matter of humanity or not. It's a matter of privacy and bodily integrity. Which it infringes on both.

No privacy invasion,

Any marking which displays private information, is an infringement of privacy. No matter the degree.

Quote:

and it's that one hidden piece of information that keeps this disease spreading.

Again, the disease is typically spread during the stage where it is asymptomatic. People spread it, because they did not know they had anything to spread. Getting a tattoo placed on people known to be infected, does nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. Less than 1.

Quote:

Quote:

Bodily integrity? You got an STD lol, clearly you had to do something that lacked integrity to get that

Like getting a blood transfusion? Oh what a shameless huzzy one must have been, to have decided for them to get a life saving blood transfusion, that just happened to slip through the cracks of testing. Believe it or not, it does happen.

Also, how dare such shameless tramps get raped by an infected person...

Quote:

and no, sharing a toilet seat is not a possible way to transmit an STD not even herpes.

Obviously not. But such a shame that there are other non-sexual ways, to....INCLUDING GETTING A TATTOO!

Yes. You heard that right. Getting a tattoo can transmit STDs, if the needle is a reused needle that was not properly sterilized. And you're talking about intentionally tattooing known infected people, instantly upping the chances of inadvertent spread.

Quote:

Anyone who gets a tattoo, a piercing, is obese, cuts, drinks alcohol, smokes cigarettes, does drugs are all contradictions of bodily integrity.

Of their own will. That's the key, here. That's why rape is frowned upon.

Also, don't get me started on obesity....You're already in far enough over your head...

Quote:

Quote:

We're not these pure innocent angels that just made a mistake, and even people who make mistakes have to pay the consequence.

Starting with you. It's your idea. You go first. I declare your ignorance to be hazardous. So you will now be ordered to get a tattoo that indicates that you can not be trusted with any task that requires mental function. You will not be given a driver's license, or access to any tool sharper than a spoon.

black_wing_angel

So punish those who do.

Everyone is also fully capable of murder. So let's go chop everyones' hands off, just to be safe...

Quarantine was my first idea, I don't know why they let positive test results walk back into society.

Because they're still people? Because the last 2 or 3 times people have been herded up against their will, the practice has been heavily frowned upon?

Go ask a Jew how they feel about concentration camps.

The only justification for such a quarantine, would be if they could spread the disease without contact. Such as through the air we all breathe. And as long as you're not contacting bodily fluids, you are not at risk.

Quote:

That's dangerous.

No it's not. Unsafe sex is. Which we discourage, anyway...

Quote:

Quote:

Bartenders are now being held liable for allowing drunks to drive home, instead of taking their keys and giving them a phone call.

That's an entirely different matter. Drunkenness is not only temporary, but drunk driving is actually a crime. Testing positive for an STD is not.

So again, you're full of s**t, Adolph.

[midnight_angel628]

black_wing_angel

To the people "flagged", it's a punishment.

It's not a dunce hat. And punishment is inevitable. The punishment for being careless is a deadly disease, that's a fact, I have no discretion there. It's paltry to the punishment at hand, to add an indicator, and actually thoughtful to those of the public. I don't care if a couple of sluts get a couple of dirty looks as a result of somebody recognizing this red flag, the reward is the extinction of a disease. It could be another historical change that came from just a couple dabs of ink.

black_wing_angel

That's still morally unjustifiable. What about people who have religious convictions against tattoos? What about people who just don't want one?

You're trampling on peoples' bodily integrity, for a safety net that is unnecessary.

People who have unprotected sex are not only religiously hypocritical, but they also do not have any "bodily integrity". In the rare event that a diseased person coughs blood into a person's retna and it gets into their bloodstream... Hey, we can't be perfect. You're not thinking about the uninfected. They would be thankful for this. The safety net is necessary, for it is paltry compared to other diseases that have faded out due to quarantined individuals (small pox, polio, etc). I guess if a little tattoo is unspeakable, I dare not suggest the even MORE effective method of quarantining them.

black_wing_angel

Any marking which displays private information, is an infringement of privacy. No matter the degree.

Bu you said that the information needs to be shared with the partner in order to be responsible. I don't know about you, but if my partner has an STD, I don't want that information to remain "private". Public safety.

Quote:

Also, how dare such shameless tramps get raped by an infected person...

It's unfortunate, but the positive test results will not change the ethical dilemmas here. If you're arguing that infected people should not rape, then I agree. Actually, nobody should. It's not fair to people who were doing nothing wrong and got killed by a drink driver but the driver gets probation. Bad things happen to good people everyday, and sometimes they pay the price for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with their LIFE let alone a tiny ******** tattoo.

Quote:

Obviously not. But such a shame that there are other non-sexual ways, to....INCLUDING GETTING A TATTOO!

Yes. You heard that right. Getting a tattoo can transmit STDs, if the needle is a reused needle that was not properly sterilized. And you're talking about intentionally tattooing known infected people, instantly upping the chances of inadvertent spread.

As I mentioned before, it's unfortunate that transmission can occur without sex. Assuming this procedure is done in a sterile, medical environment, the risk of that is no greater than tainted needles in a hospital. It would even open up some job opportunities to struggling or beginner tattoo artists.

black_wing_angel

Of their own will. That's the key, here. That's why rape is frowned upon.

Also, don't get me started on obesity....You're already in far enough over your head...

Starting with you. It's your idea. You go first. I declare your ignorance to be hazardous. So you will now be ordered to get a tattoo that indicates that you can not be trusted with any task that requires mental function. You will not be given a driver's license, or access to any tool sharper than a spoon.

So punish those who do.

That's an entirely different matter. Drunkenness is not only temporary, but drunk driving is actually a crime. Testing positive for an STD is not.

But they should be held liable for knowing they have an STD and still spreading it. That way, it's also the responsibility of the non-infected person to actually KNOW who they're ********. Public safety.

[black_wing_angel]

midnight_angel628

black_wing_angel

To the people "flagged", it's a punishment.

It's not a dunce hat. And punishment is inevitable. The punishment for being careless is a deadly disease,

Except to the people who aren't careless.

See, the problem here, is that you assume a lot about people. You assume that the only people with STDs, are people who "carelessly" ******** infected people. This is far from true.

You're either trolling, or just ******** retarded. My money is on the latter.

Quote:

that's a fact, I have no discretion there. It's paltry to the punishment at hand, to add an indicator, and actually thoughtful to those of the public. I don't care if a couple of sluts get a couple of dirty looks as a result of somebody recognizing this red flag,

What about the prude with a botched blood transfusion or tattoo? Or actually used a condom, that broke?

You assume all the wrong things.

Quote:

the reward is the extinction of a disease.

At the cost of freedom. Not a popular opinion, in the US.

Quote:

It could be another historical change that came from just a couple dabs of ink.

Or spread by it.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

That's still morally unjustifiable. What about people who have religious convictions against tattoos? What about people who just don't want one?

You're trampling on peoples' bodily integrity, for a safety net that is unnecessary.

People who have unprotected sex are not only religiously hypocritical,

How? Not all religions are Christianity. Not all disease spreading sex is intentionally unprotected. Not all infections are sexual. Not all sexual infections are out of wedlock.

Quote:

but they also do not have any "bodily integrity". In the rare event that a diseased person coughs blood into a person's retna and it gets into their bloodstream... Hey, we can't be perfect.

So it's ok to piss on the innocent victims of circumstance, so that you can feel better about yourself. Nice one, Adolph...

Quote:

You're not thinking about the uninfected.

Actually, I am.

Quote:

They would be thankful for this.

Not really. Even the uninfected can see the errors of your logic.

Quote:

The safety net is necessary, for it is paltry compared to other diseases that have faded out due to quarantined individuals (small pox, polio, etc).

No it's not. Medical science is necessary. Social quarantine to prevent the spread of diseases that require contact with bodily fluid to spread, is not. Just avoid bodily fluids that aren't your own...

Quote:

I guess if a little tattoo is unspeakable, I dare not suggest the even MORE effective method of quarantining them.

You really are ******** sick...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Any marking which displays private information, is an infringement of privacy. No matter the degree.

Bu you said that the information needs to be shared with the partner in order to be responsible.

Privately, between 2 people who agree to share certain activities.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but if my partner has an STD, I don't want that information to remain "private". Public safety.

Who needs to know, besides the people sexually involved, or dealing with bodily fluids? That's why we wear rubber gloves when dealing with bodily fluids, and ask questions in privacy, when necessary.

Quote:

Quote:

Also, how dare such shameless tramps get raped by an infected person...

It's unfortunate, but the positive test results will not change the ethical dilemmas here.

If you're Adolph ******** Hitler, I suppose.

Quote:

If you're arguing that infected people should not rape, then I agree.

I'm arguing that further victimizing the already heavily damaged, is sickening and inhuman.

Quote:

Actually, nobody should. It's not fair to people who were doing nothing wrong and got killed by a drink driver but the driver gets probation.

He also committed a crime.

Quote:

Quote:

Obviously not. But such a shame that there are other non-sexual ways, to....INCLUDING GETTING A TATTOO!

Yes. You heard that right. Getting a tattoo can transmit STDs, if the needle is a reused needle that was not properly sterilized. And you're talking about intentionally tattooing known infected people, instantly upping the chances of inadvertent spread.

As I mentioned before, it's unfortunate that transmission can occur without sex. Assuming this procedure is done in a sterile, medical environment, the risk of that is no greater than tainted needles in a hospital. It would even open up some job opportunities to struggling or beginner tattoo artists.

Everything's "unfortunate" to you, if it directly contradicts your ideals. By this stance, there's more "unfortunate" people, than actual deserving...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Of their own will. That's the key, here. That's why rape is frowned upon.

Also, don't get me started on obesity....You're already in far enough over your head...

Starting with you. It's your idea. You go first. I declare your ignorance to be hazardous. So you will now be ordered to get a tattoo that indicates that you can not be trusted with any task that requires mental function. You will not be given a driver's license, or access to any tool sharper than a spoon.

So punish those who do.

That's an entirely different matter. Drunkenness is not only temporary, but drunk driving is actually a crime. Testing positive for an STD is not.

But they should be held liable for knowing they have an STD and still spreading it.

If they do so, then yes, that's a crime. Put them in prison for it. Don't punish anyone who simply has a disease they don't intend to spread.

Quote:

Quote:

That way, it's also the responsibility of the non-infected person to actually KNOW who they're ********. Public safety.

Public safety, my a**....You don't care about the public. You're ready and willing to trample every right they have, just to fulfill your ignorant vendetta against assumed sexual deviants. You're pathetic.

[Arcoon Effox]

midnight_angel628

Marking or tagging a permanently diseased individual will "flag" that person and deem them a hazard.

This is probably the most repugnant idea I've heard all week.

midnight_angel628

Health insurance could cover this...

...In the event that a medical breakthrough introduces a cure to a particular STD then they could always have the tattoo laser-removed also covered by insurance provided they have the medical records of the tattoo's application.

The idea that health insurance would cover a governmentally-mandated procedure is just silly. If a government were to enforce such nonsense, they'd have to pay for it, meaning the money would come from taxes.

midnight_angel628

Nobody would spend that much money just to spread a disease.

Nobody would spend that much money tattooing everyone with an STD.

midnight_angel628

It's cheaper to use protection.

It also precludes the need for such stupidity.

midnight_angel628

The only debate here is whether it is considered "humane".

Um, no, there really isn't a debate here at all.

midnight_angel628

My argument is that although people often believe that what they do with their own body is up to them, that people are capable of using their bodies to harm others.

So, is your angle "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "guns don't kill people, bullets kill people"?

In any case, deliberately spreading an STD is already a criminal offense, and gets you put on the Sex Offender Registry, which basically already serves the purpose of these atrocious tattoos you're proposing.

midnight_angel628

Everybody knows this

...is a horrible idea, and shouldn't even be taken into consideration, if only for the sake of kids who are born with STDs, who could do nothing about it, being subjected to such a heinous thing.