Iowan Nick Rhoades was arrested and charged for exposing a sexual partner to the HIV which he carried. In a recent trial dispute, Rhoades’ lawyers claim that having used a condom to ensure that his HIV did not spread, Rhoades is not at fault. If they had won, Rhoades would have escaped the maximum 25-year jail sentence and life-long label as a sex offender.

However, the judge of the trial ruled that the crime was not in actually exposing HIV to his partner, but in failing to inform him that he carried the potentially deadly virus.

This ruling reinforces Iowa legislation that insists upon individuals being told of their partners’ HIV or AIDS. The decision, following predetermined law, was not groundbreaking in any way. What’s interesting about this case is that Rhoades tried to argue against his charges in this manner.

His (or his lawyers’) mistake was that he is not being punished for spreading the virus but for lack of informed consent. Rhoades’ use of protection might have been a well-intended attempt to keep his partner from contracting the HIV he carried, but it just wasn’t enough. Without the consent of a partner who had full knowledge of his condition, Rhoades was still committing a crime.

Consent is the buzzword of the decade — posters, public campaigns, publications and organizations all push for consent in sexual relations — and for good reason. Nonconsensual sex, even if the partner doesn’t explicitly say “no,” is rape.

But that question (do you want to have sex or not?) doesn’t fully define consent. Informed consent is knowing the full potential consequences of having sex with a certain individual. You might consent to having sex with an attractive stranger, but if he reveals after the fact that he has more STDs than he can count on one hand, you might feel some regrets.

The “yes” of consent may seem like an absolute answer, but it depends on context. Providing context, whether it be personal details, criminal history or STD admission, is important in ensuring that the consent you get from a partner is truly meant.

For an individual with HIV, AIDS, herpes or any other sexually transmitted disease, sex with a stranger is just that temporary excitement, the physical satisfaction of the act. But for the uninformed partner who might have just contracted an STD ranging from mildly irritating to fatal, that moment is a little more significant.

Those who have an STD may have been dealt an unfair hand, and it can seem easy to ignore the ways that they can hurt other people. But having experienced the pain or isolation that HIV, herpes or any other disease brings should be enough to deter someone from spreading their condition to another.

Telling a potential partner about your imperfections might decrease the chance of you actually getting into bed with them. Regardless of how unfair that may seem, 30 minutes of sexual enjoyment isn’t worth a lifetime of regret.

If Rhoades did make one good decision, it was his use of a condom – an equally necessary step once all STD details have been disclosed. After you’ve divulged all pertinent medical history, have gotten the necessary consent from your partner and have undergone some form of protection to deter the spread of STDs, then and only then should you (insert sex euphemism here).