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!
No there isn't. Thank your state nanny culture for that. But oh, we're so enlightened now, aren't we?
If he does not have to face consequences for that, then we should bust loose every convict out of jail and prison for murdering their victims. They KNEW they intended to do them harm, even if their victim did not. Law is the hammer/screwdriver/saw - the 'tools' to restore rights and/or loss and violation of. That restoration often includes the emotions that go with those losses. How else effect the restoration? Allow her to take his life..? That would only effect another 'loss'. Its up to her not to sink to his level of deception.
Yes, this guy was being held responsible for his giving her the STD. But if everyone took her route, then the guy would sue who gave it to him, and then that person would sue who gave it to them . It's crazy. People do not want to accept personal responsibility for their choices.
Simple.
"No glove, no love"......
I would say charge them if they are in a relationship with you and you have been true to them but for the above, its prostitution compensated.
I am strong on my views on conjugal unions and things like the above makes me crawl under my skin.
Live with it and enjoy the publicity now....
get a grip.
She should have said no to sex after he demanded to not wear a condom, safe sex is obviously the safer option, but seeing as he knew that he had herpes and that he was currently contagious (you can tell) his refusal to wear a condom can actually make this case intentional rather then reckless.
Yes conservatives, personal responsibility is important, but so is health.
I agree with the courts judgement, of in this case her taking 25% responsibility for the transmission of the disease and him taking 75%.
Blame somenone else.
Sound familiar?
"No, ma'am sorry I don't wear those, I hate them!"
"Well I don't know you that well, but I feel I can trust you not to give me any STD's. I'm a pretty smart woman."