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]")
Both people are responsible for their actions. Hers of stupidity and his of malice. And both are now paying a price. Her with an STD and him with a court judgement against him.
He could have been smart, since he had the actual knowledge of infection, and said wrap it up. Or he could have told her straight away that he had one so she had the information to make a better call.
Yet she is the only one being held to any count of "personal responsibility". People that let him off the hook are hypocrites.
Now this creates a court case for future cases to rely on. What happens when a bunch of cases are "he said she said" cases. This one just happens to be a rich old man that she was digging in the first place.
Free help? Why? I didn't force her to have sex with that man.
And that we have an issue with massive government spending shouldn't impede someones ability to get justice.
And further, as far as precedent. Why is it considered risky to have sex with someone unprotected early on? Because of the creeps out there that would lie about STDs simply to get sex. This dude is the boogeyman that causes the high risk factor. A few of these Court cases take place where someone loses cash for knowingly withholding STD information and behavior may change. More men and women that have STDs will care about either wrapping it up or not lying about it to protect against legal action. So the risk factor will decrease and the case of spread infections will. And I'm not saying eliminate, just decrease.
The thing is, I think the potential decrease in STD transmission is a good thing. I think there are some judgemental people out there that would prefer the risk factor high as a means of punishing "wicked little girls and boys" for not having the same morality. (Not saying you are, but you know these people exist.)
Did you not take health classes?
Did you ever take ethics?
It doesn't say to compensate 900k for someones stupidity.
It may say that you owe someone 900k if you lie and expose someone to a lifelong infection. You likely skipped that chapter.
Gotcha.
Thank you for putting words into my mouth. Next time I would suggest you make your point instead of changing mine.
So, just answer yes or no. Does a person with an infection have an ethical or moral obligation to keep from spreading said infection?
And stocking condoms and insisting on their use when you know you have an STD decreases risk versus unprotected sex.
And telling someone you have the STD and letting them make their own educated choice completely morally absolves you.
In an argument do you really want to hang your hat on a small percentage of the information an aspect of the discussion?
So if we go the first part that it is not 100% guaranteed she will receive an STD then the point is irrelevant. She may or may not have received it.
Well to give out a 900k settlement there (in my mind) needs to be intent. He didn't necessarily intend to give them to her. If he did, then that changes my view. But there is nothing written to that fact.
Forget about the 900k. What do you think is appropriate in this instance?
I can't answer that because I haven't thought about it.
I'm looking at to different things, as is always the case in a civil trial. Does she have a reasonable case and if so what is the reward.
One leads to the other.
I'm looking at the half of does she have a reasonable case, which is what weve been going back and forth on. You've been taking one portion of the details and making it your argument while I've been, repeatedly, trying to point out the whole picture of why she has a valid case. Once we get past the validity then we get to reparations.
So are you agreeing that she has a valid case? Take some time to think about that AND if so what the reward should be since 900k is too much.
If you agree the case is valid then cool, we're done here.
Yes I think she has a valid case. No I do not know what a just reparation would be. I am worried the precedent this has.
I once had a woman (college years) yes I was stupid back then. We slept together. I did not call her the next day or the next. I had no plans on it and I am pretty sure she knew it. Since I never had one girlfriend.. I always had many. She hatched this plan (Probably her and her friends.. (yes I had a relationship with a few of her friends)
She called me about 4 days latter and said I needed to get myself checked out because well she had some STD. Needless to say I did.. Needless to say stupid me. She didn't have one and my tests came back normal. Now if you ever had the tests they are exactly pleasant.
I should have sued her sexy butt in hindsight. But oh well.. They wanted to teach me a lesson.
Yeah I had a few that couldn't keep it wrap up and was a daddy by 18. Some are still together others are divorced.
I had a waitress I met out one of the nightclub we went to get mad at me because well I guess I stood her up one night. My friends wanted to hit her bar one night. I was firmly against it, but they said they would buy my drinks. Needless to say I had a bunch of waitresses furious with me. She told me she was pregnant. I said oh? Let me see the proof and we need a pat test. I had 8 beers poured on me that night from various waitresses. Needless to say we left, but I did managed to get a date with one of co workers. No she wasn't pregnant.
Anyway take care mate. Even though we disagree thanks for the chat.
But I don't think people should have to submit a swab before signing up.
As I said, he wasn't really an idiot. He knew what he was doing. Ignore it all you want. That just makes you ignorant of all the facts and details and that reflects in your opinion.
First we need.. was it against her will?
Was being infected with and STD against her will? I would think so. Few people want to be infected. Can you prove that she wanted to be infected?
Your second question is just stupid.
Its not stupid at all. You don't want to answer it. You asked the question was it against her will. You didn't specify if you were asking about the sex or the STD. She had the sex, uniformed as it was, of her own free will. But she got an STD against her will. That fully answers every aspect of that question.
You can't ignore that she didn't want the STD. If you are then you're being biased. So that begs the question would she want an STD and if so can you prove it?
What you object to is likely that you'd have to agree that getting an STD was in fact against her will. You don't want to admit that.
Yes the second question is and was just stupid.