I'm still furious about the lack of thought most people have on this issue.
While I don't disagree that the woman was foolish for not using protection, I also see that what the man did was with malice. He knowingly exposed her to an illness. Thats criminal.
It seems like most people really only care about branding the woman with any label - that of "slut" - for having sex after four dates. This without knowing what happened during those four dates and having no concept of what its like to be around the age of 50.
I see a lot of hateful and ignorant internet trolls out there who care more about attacking a woman than saying one thing about a man who would lie about an illness and infect someone with it.
![The Public Rejects Compensation for 'Surprise STDs' [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002739029/stds-80129585419_xlarge.png "The Public Rejects Compensation for 'Surprise STDs' [INFOGRAPHIC]")
The Public Rejects Compensation for 'Surprise STDs' [INFOGRAPHIC]
SodaHead Infographics
2012/06/19 18:13:05
A couple of weeks ago, a woman reportedly won $900,000 in court from a guy who gave her genital herpes. According to the report, the man failed to inform her of his disease and refused to use protection. But we wanted to know if the public feels that victims of "suprise STDs" should receive compensation, or if they should still be held personally accountable for neglecting to use protection. Check out this week's infographic for details on how people responded. Let's dive!
Top Opinion
-
Superman 2012/06/19 18:56:49
![Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003329051/thanksgiving-93109325925_crop.png "Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]")
![A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003194651/stealing-88440771717_crop.png "A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]")
rubbers wont protect you from HIV and most STDS as their molecular structure is smaller than the rubber opps we all need to be less sexual and more moral sorry but it true!!! he should be resposible
He probably contacted her first. She liked his profile so she calls him on the phone. They have several long talks before she decides to meet him in person. Then she likes him enough to go on several more dates. And after all that; after getting to know him and covering every base there was to cover, only then did she make the fateful decision to have unprotected sex with him. She believed he was honest. She believed he was clean because he never once admitted that he was infected- not in his profile, not in his emails, not on the phone, and not in person.
This guy- this slimeball- not only had sex with her without protection, he did it rough to make sure she got infected. That's criminal. She is a good person, not a tramp. He is a predatory animal and deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, if only to quarantine his nasty ass.
It's more like Sharia law than American justice.
Plus if you have one....tell the person. Seriously..
In any case where people chose to engage in an activity where their welfare hinges on mutual honesty, one cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the dishonesty of others. Taking responsibility means either fessing up to and paying for the damages you cause or suing the crap out of the person who causes you damage.
Did the STD carrier previously know they had the STD?
Did the carrier actively refuse to use protection?
Did the carrier lie about their sex life (e.g., "You're the only one," when in reality they were sleeping with 10 people at the time.)?
Ultimately, it is up to both parties to use a condom when having sex in a non-monogamous relationship. I can't say I feel too sorry for people who catch STDs when they had no interest in using protection or discussing their partner's history. However, I also believe there are situations when the victim should be compensated.