PUBLIC OPINION > Victims of 'Surprise STDs' Should Not Get Compensation
SodaHead News
2012/06/08 13:00:00
The media recently reported on a 49-year-old woman who received genital herpes from a 69-year-old man she met on eHarmony. The woman won $900,000 in court after convincing the judge that the man did not tell her about his disease, and aggressively refused to put on a condom. We wanted to know what the public thought about "surprise STDs."
The overall vote was enough to make a judgement call, but it was close and controversial. One reason it was so controversial is because the situation is inherently vague. Even in the case cited above, it's very unclear what the actual circumstances were. If the defendant was aggressive enough to refuse a condom, why wasn't it called "rape"? Should that even matter? What if a victim lies about being informed, just to make a profit? There are a lot of variables.
Conservatives Dismiss the Court
The only demographic to play a major role in this issue was politics, and you can probably guess the outcome: Liberals were keen on punishment, while conservatives were quick to dismiss the court. The primary argument against punishing people who spread STDs without warning is that the victim had a certain level of responsibility, as well -- assuming, of course, it wasn't rape.
The only demographic to play a major role in this issue was politics, and you can probably guess the outcome: Liberals were keen on punishment, while conservatives were quick to dismiss the court. The primary argument against punishing people who spread STDs without warning is that the victim had a certain level of responsibility, as well -- assuming, of course, it wasn't rape.Teens Know to Use Protection
The age breakdown was interesting. Teens were the most likely to deny compensation, probably because they're still going through sex ed and know just how important protection is. However, support for compensation formed a sort of bell curve, peaking at the 25-34 range, probably about the age skimping on protection becomes the most tempting.
The age breakdown was interesting. Teens were the most likely to deny compensation, probably because they're still going through sex ed and know just how important protection is. However, support for compensation formed a sort of bell curve, peaking at the 25-34 range, probably about the age skimping on protection becomes the most tempting.Men Are More Likely to Punish
We were curious to see if gender affected the results -- maybe women would be more likely to sympathize with the victim in this particular case. But there was hardly any difference at all, and the difference that did exist was the exact opposite. Women were a little bit more likely to let the defendant off the hook.
We were curious to see if gender affected the results -- maybe women would be more likely to sympathize with the victim in this particular case. But there was hardly any difference at all, and the difference that did exist was the exact opposite. Women were a little bit more likely to let the defendant off the hook.If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about surprise STDs. We'd love to hear from you!
Dumb bitch
But blaming dating agency because she got std is just an insane stupidity
I have fish nothing good for her
If someone refuses to use a condom, don't have sex, period.
Still, I feel if there's reasonable evidence to suggest that a partner knew and was aware that they had an STD, and the matter is further pursued to prove that they knew before having sex and still insisted on putting a partner at risk, that they should be forced to give compensation. If you have an STD, know it, and fail to disclose it, you should be in legal hot water for that.
And the evidence for this would be anything from an facebook message fired off to a friend saying, "I got the clap, and I'm gonna get it looked at later, but I'm still picking up that hot chick tonight at ten" to a formal STD test result. Because that shows the person was negligent and willingly and knowingly put others at risk.
But otherwise, to demand compensation opens a whole door of ugly possibilities that will drown our legal system, and I don't think it's reasonable at all. When you have sex, you take the risk. You demand protection, or don't do it at all (and if forced, it then becomes rape, which becomes an entirely different issue). I just think that there are a few cases where it's abundantly clear that someone knew they had an STD and didn't care, and that those cases should be given consideration.
One also has to consider those who will say they will put on a condom but fail too. I've heard stories, I can't personally confirm any, of women telling men to put on a condom and than having them slip it off when she isn't paying attention and have sex with her without one. Why? Well, they didn't know how to put on a condom or just thought it felt better without it, it got to the point where she put it one for them.
This isn't her duty though, she shouldn't have to put on your condom because she doesn't trust you to do it or keep it on. Going further, lying to her about this is a serious breech of trust and putting her body and life at risk.
If you have an STI you have a responsibility to let other people know that you have an infection, and if you were told to put on a condom you have a responsibility to put it on correctly and keep it on.
I mean, I won't fault someone if they didn't reasonably know that they had an STD, but if they knew and failed to disclose it, there is something seriously wrong with allowing that to happen.
As for men who slip off the condom without the woman knowing-- there should be serious repercussions for that. If you agree to have sex with someone and they want you to wear a condom, that doesn't mean you put one on and then take it off. >.> I'll never understand why anyone thinks that's remotely okay.
And you're right, if they didn't know than that's about the only reason when it would be okay.
P.S., due to some troubling criticism from one or two SH's I can't seem to avoid, I feel inclined to post a disclaimer here, and at my profile. This comment/post is not aimed at ANY particular person on this thread/poll/question, or any other in any way, manner, shape or form. It is a general observation from the perspective of an individual sovereign human person who is simply stating personal opinion or the teachings of my Church in a general nature on a website nominally and supposedly created for just such actions. If you have been personally offended, it is not due to any intent whatsoever on the part of the author, who speaks to the same culture, group, environment of which he himself is a part. The human race. Further, I testify that to my knowledge, I do not even know another member of this site in my personal real 3D world life, and so without any personal knowledge of another member, I don't possess the tools, intent, or even inclination to personally insinuate anything as a derogatory character indictment on an individual basis to any other person using this opinion website at this time, at any time in the past, or anytime in the future. I reserve the right to use this website to promote the worldview, religion, cultural preferences and ideologies to which I prescribe, as I would hope that every other individual using this board does. I welcome serious and reasoned argument, even to a high and in-depth degree, and believe this to be perfectly achievable without personal attack.
I don't think she should be compensated, but you were wrong about herpes.