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!

sodahead stds
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Superman 2012/06/19 18:56:49
    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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Ben Superman 2012/06/19 20:13:20
  • smitty Ben 2012/06/19 19:05:12
    Her attorney I guess. I just am flabbergasted at this suit.
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/19 18:53:11
    Funny, you'd think the person who knows they have an STD would have protection to keep a partner safe.

    Everyone is ignoring the malice of the man on this issue. Straight up malice. Malice trumps stupidity.
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/19 19:09:02 (edited)
    There is no malice at least from what I read. He didn't specifically go out and target this woman to give her whatever it was he gave her.

    It is what happens when you have sex unprotected. The pill doesn't protect from STDs. Heck I was in the unfortunate position one night in my college years where I didn't have a condom on me. I told her no (it was hard to do). She looked at me and said "You got to be kidding me?) She went into her roommates room and grabbed one.

    This woman was how old? She took a risk she never should have.

    "Funny, you'd think the person who knows they have an STD would have protection to keep a partner safe. " Will add yes I agree. Why i doubt she was a partner rather than a gold digger.
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/19 19:24:33
    You conveniently fail to discuss that he KNEW he had it. Its what happens when you have unprotected sex when one of them has an STD, not all the time. He HAD the knowledge.

    Where is his personal responsibility for grasping that information and doing something with it? Where is his responsibility to say, "wrap it up"?

    Only one person in this equation seems to be held to any responsibility to their actions. He is completely unmentioned and let off by you.

    And then, of course, without any information about her you make the claim shes a "gold digger". Does he have a ton of money? Do we know this? Its an emotional and unsubstantiated accusation. And this is the BS mindset that I hate.
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/19 19:56:27
    Yes I know he said he had it. I do forget which STD. I was just going to school you on STDs but I believe you already know when you added "Its what happens when you have unprotected sex when one of them has an STD, not all the time." key 4 words not all the time... Just because you have sex with someone who has an STD doesn't means 100% of the time you will contract it. Just because you have sex with a condom doesn't mean 100% of the time you will not become pregnant or contract an STD. Yes the risk is higher.

    From a medical journal: I wish I could highlight not guaranteed. Yes he was. Yes she was wrong. 900k and the precedent it now holds.. I think is wrong.

    "Between outbreaks, it's OK to have sex, as long as your partner understands and accepts the risk. He or she can be infected even when you don't have symptoms or sores. To help prevent infecting your partner, always use a latex condom for vaginal sex, anal sex, and receiving fellatio. Condoms are not guaranteed to prevent infection, but research has shown that they provide some protection. Use a dental dam for cunnilingus and analingus."
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/20 14:15:03
    Thank you for making my point: "as long as your partner understands and accepts the risk".

    Did he inform her of the risk and was she allowed to make a call based on all the information? No.

    If he had told her on the first date or seconds beforehand then I'd be 100% on his side. Shed have had all the information. She didn't. He withheld. He's the bad guy. Case closed.
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/20 14:29:46
    Somehow on the third date I doubt they were partners.

    He said he didn't have a condom and she still went through with it.

    "He's the bad guy. Case closed." That I can agree with. I am disagreeing with the monetary award. He is an ass.
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/20 14:44:06
    He said he didn't have a condom and HE WENT THROUGH WITH IT TOO. Except he's the one who knew what he had. He could have avoided all this if he a) told her or b) cared enough to have condoms handy and insist on use. Thats his responsibility and it time for the personal responsibility hawks to start applying their rhetoric evenly.

    So her punishment is a lifetime of STDs and his punishment is getting called an ass after 10 or so posts blaming her? Sounds equitable (sarcasm).
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/20 14:57:29
    "HE WENT THROUGH WITH IT TOO." I know where the caps button is too. SHE WENT THROUGH WITH IT TOO.

    Amazing huh?
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/20 15:17:34
    How many of them had for sure knowledge of what he had? Only he did? Then that make the he went through with it more important.

    Stop letting him off the hook.
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/20 18:01:52
    i am not letting him of the hook. 900k is a lot of compensation for something that was your fault as well. My point a dangerous precedent.
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/20 18:12:56
    So if it was 90k that would be ok? If you want to quibble over amounts thats fine. I don't particularly care about figuring out the exact amount she should have recieved. All I care about is that he is legally held to justice. Maybe it should have just been any medical bills regarding the STD for the rest of her life, doctor visits/medication/etc. I'd be fine with that too. I'm not exactly a fan of pain and suffering rewards.

    The detail of the reward is not as interesting to me as is the fact that he shares a larger portion of the blame and that that is recognized. I'm tired of seeing a lot of people on here calling her the slut while having to wait forever to hear this guy get taken to task or sometimes even held to a 50/50 account when he was worse.

    And I'll argue all along that the concept of restitution for knowingly infecting someone is a good precedent in that in time it may reduce the spread of infection and risk factors for sex. 900k or 90k, whatever, I just want people to truly be held responsible for their actions.
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/20 18:19:44
    I don't know what is the right amount. Why not 900 million?

    Like I said before.. if he did with the intent of infecting her then yes you are right. Nothing I read showed intent.
  • Superman smitty 2012/06/20 19:22:56
    Intent isn't the only thing. He'd be even more culpable than just 75% if there was intent. But he still acted with knowledge that he withheld from the other party and risked her injury based on that knowledge.

    Now, if he didn't know that he had an STD than too bad for her. Thats what happens. But I haven't yet read an argument from his side that he didn't know.

    So to be precise:

    - 50/50 and no damage if he didn't know or if he knew and informed her and she took the risk anyway.

    - 75/25 if he knowingly exposed her while withholding that information.

    - 100 if he had in a premeditated fashion sought to make sure she was infected.

    Court got this one right. Damages and restitution amount are another thing, and I really don't care about that.
  • smitty Superman 2012/06/21 17:59:40
    "Damages and restitution amount are another thing, and I really don't care about that." Like I have said many times before this is my beef. No wonder we go in circles.
  • Twinky smitty 2012/06/21 22:18:11
    If there wasn't any protection (neither of them brought any) then why did HE continue? KNOWING he had an STI.
    You ask why did she, but surely a far more important question in this debate is why did he?
  • smitty Twinky 2012/06/25 13:36:06
    True.. Maybe he was drunk. Maybe the foreplay got too involved. Heck I don't know.. I wasn't there.

    There is fault by both as far as I am concerned.
  • Twinky smitty 2012/06/25 17:40:26
    Yes there is, but more on him

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.


2016/02/12 14:20:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals