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!
PS...Thanks for the kind thought...
If you can prove that someone is purposefully running around contracting diseases and spreading them maliciously, I can see a case.
...But if you hop in to bed with a guy without even bothering to ask why his thing is green, that's on you. It's common sense to use a condom.
So much for that too late.
Lay with dogs get up with fleas, lay with flies get up with maggots (just because it tickle around the coochie and you see what it is; you got a choice to open the door and let it in, or keep it closed and run.
Another thing that prevented me from voting is that it would have to be on a case-by-case basis. If you've dated someone for a long time and trust that person and are finally ready to sleep together, if you ask outright and they lie, that seems like it should be punishable to me. There is also an instance where, let's say, a couple has been together for years STD-free, but one of them cheats and knowingly contracts an STD. Should there not be some sort of liability for continuing sex with the unknowing partner and exposing them? However, jumping in the sack with no protection after not knowing each other long, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or just simply not asking, I would think no compensation. I guess what it boils down to for me is how responsible for contracting the STD each party is, and that's what would have to be a case-by-case basis. But then that comes down to a he-said, she-said type thing which is almost impossible to prove in court.
Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought it would be.
physician.
As well, when you ask, you should be prepared to answer clearly, boldly and honestly as well.
To further reduce the risk of STD's education of STD's (what, who, how, when, etc) needs to be readily available at all sexual activity ages.
Oh, and no... no cash awards.
Those who can't keep their pants on shuold pay the conseqences for their own actions. It is the persons own fualt for getting a STD.
If the guy didn't know he was infected, that would be one mitigating factor. If the woman knew he was infected but didn't have lesions and agreed to sex anyway, that would also be a mitigating factor.
That the guy knew he was infected and didn't disclose before having sex, that is not negligence on the part of the woman, but that on the part of the man, and he should TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
That being, said, it is also a point that the award might be excessive.
You cannot say you love America and hate Americans...so why do you hate America?
Maybe YOU go without sex involuntarily, but please don't try to sentence the rest of humanity over your shortcomings.
YOU say chastity is a good thing...as do most who have no other choice. Please don't try to make the choice for the rest of us.