Dying for sex?

In the secular and liberal world, the concept of consent is the cornerstone of a liberal's approach to moral issues. Beyond consent though is a more fundamental human desire - the wish for public endorsement of a person's actions. For example, things that were originally only an issue in the "privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults" now require not just state endorsement but full acceptance from the Church. Whilst liberals say they tolerate anything with appropriate consent, they tend not to tolerate wildly different opinions.

So we fall back to the issue of consent, which isn't a bad place to fall back to.

An extremely important event then, was the recent ruling that failure of one party to disclose AIDS to their sexual partner could be treated as a crime tantamount to rape, because the partner cannot provide fully informed consent.

There are groups that oppose this move. The AIDS foundation is worried:

The Aids Foundation says that a Court of Appeal ruling that says people with HIV could be charged with rape if they do not tell a sexual partner about their disease, is over the top. In a precedent setting decision on Monday the Court of Appeal in Wellington ruled people with HIV could be charged with rape if they do not tell a willing sexual partner about their disease.

It doesn't actually go far enough. The case related to entitlement for ACC due to mental duress, and is seen as a potential precedent setting case, but lets get even clearer. Many AIDS related organisations suggest condom use should remove any such obligation to inform partners of HIV status. Condom use (protected sex) is no guarantee of safety either. Participants are still unwittingly placed in a game of Russian Roulette, and whether there are 5 blanks and one live bullet in the barrel, or a magazine clip of 20 blanks with only one live bullet, is beside the point. Meaningful consent requires disclosure, and not just on AIDS either - how about on all known sexual diseases! Why not let the partner make the decision on how safe they really think condoms are? Just this attitude alone speaks volumes.

This is going to send ripples through secular society. Presumably, the reaction of the AIDS foundation suggests "Caveat Emptor" rules if anything gets in the way of lust, or in this case, ethics and moral obligation.

My post here is to suggest to Conservatives that lending support for these kinds of issues is a practical approach for creating a sea change of opinion on the issues of casual sex, relationships and the meaning of integrity. Putting things in terms of consent is something liberals can understand, and ultimately have to support to be true to their belief system.

[Link to the story behind the graphic - not directly related at all but a worthy story.]