Should Victims Receive Compensation for 'Surprise STDs'?

Yep. I dont know, I didnt realise so many people have no sense of responsibility or accountability anymore! Its kinda sad.

I used to think it was just Democrats that were irresponsible then I realized that most Republicans were just as reckless.

OH, i Agree Completely!

maybe they can refuse to cover his Viagra.

lol

Unless they are a rape victim, they pretty much knew the risks going into the bedroom...

I think that's different then someone having sex on their own accord... so in that woman's case, I would say yes, she SHOULD get compensated. That's awful that that happened to her.

In that case, the poor woman should be paid through the court by her husband. This woman only had four dates with this man.

I think most of us who voted 'no' were just voting based on this particular case. I fully believe the lady your hairdresser knew would be perfectly entitled to compensation... and rape is a completely different thing, since they have no say in the matter, so they also would deserve compensation.

Sounds like a fail on her part, just as much as it is for him. Fail all around.

Maybe all people should try not married no sex. How about some moral values.

Surprise! You were dumb enough to sleep with someone you couldn't trust. This is the advantage of monogamous, truly monogamous, relationships--and why you probably shouldn't sleep with someone on first meeting them.

Faulty logic. Plenty of people who are in what they think are monogamous relationships through no fault of their own can be exposed by an actual cheating spouse.

The line here comes down to one thing. Does one of the sexual partners know if they are infected or carrying. If they do then the responsibility is on them to take precautions and be honest. If not, then the other persons stupidity doesn't absolve them of their malicious behavior.

She knew him for FOUR dates. You shouldn't even have sex in that short a time.

Legally you're allowed to. This isn't the 1500s, sex isn't a crime. You have your moral view on the subject and thats fine. But your particular moral view doesn't make her actions criminal.

Knowingly exposing her to an infection however does make his actions immoral and criminal.

Why doesn't she have to use good sense and protect herself? Why would she want to have sex with a 69 year old anyway?

Those are personal and moral questions that don't really factor in legally. That she chose to have sex with a 69 year old is beside the point. I'd ask why you care or think its relevent?

Morally she should have good sense, we all shoud. But we're also all human and fallible. We forget things, or trust people we shouldn't or put ourselves in risky situations. Her consequence will be living with the public knowledge of her choices AND the STD she contracted.

BUT that doesn't absolve him of his actions or mean that he doesn't deserve consequences correct? Clearly he's malicious. 4 dates or 4 years married he witheld danggerous information. Thus he is open to consequences for his actions. In this case his consequences are monetary.

Her lesson is to use protection during sex and potentially to wait longer than 4 dates. She'll having a buring physical reminder.

His lesson is to use protection during sex, potentially wait longer than 4 dates AND to not lie and withold dangerous information exposing sexual partners. His reminder is a lighter bank account.

It's the responsibility of the disease free person to remain that way. Not the responsibility of the person with the disease to avoid transmitting it.

If I have a cold, and you catch it, that's your problem, not mine.

Thats completely incorrect.

Its the responsibility of the bullet free person to remain that way. The responsibility of the sober car accident free person to avoid getting hit by the drunk driver.

Thats an absurd statement on your part. If I don't know you have a cold and you sneeze all over me? Yeah, thats your fault actually.

That's correct.

It's not a crime, it's a preventable risk. You learn about the other person before taking that risk.

And if/when the other person lies? Thats your fault?

Grow up.

Yes. Because you should know the character of a person before you sleep with them once.

You might have missed this statement. I don't sleep with someone unless I've spent a minimum of 3 to 4 weeks, with daily in person contact, usually having lived together in the same household. Plenty of time for me to observe what kind of person they are. And if they're pushing for sex before that time? They're a tramp, and I'm not interested.

Character changes and no one is perfect enough to 100% know a person and who they will always be. It doesn't work like that in the real world.

Leopards don't change their spots. Your character is well defined by the age of 5.

We're going to have to massively disagree on that. I'm a completely different person than who I was at 5. We're not dealing in the same reality here.

Because you're not dealing in reality. Science has shown that you really don't change after that point.

I agree 4 meetings way too short a time to know if the person is good or not

that's why I used the qualifier "truly"...you should know beforehand if your partner is loyal, or if they sleep around.

Thats why so many people are blindsided by affairs. Its on them for not figuring it out and not the cheater at all.

That's right, because someone who will cheat, it shows in their character if you paid attention. Too many people approach these things emotionally instead of logically.

No. It doesn't always show up in their character. How much life experience do you have exactly?

Plenty. I'm observant. I'm logical. I don't let myself be blinded by stupid things like emotion. I don't really believe love even exists, it's just a matter of trading one thing for another. I've never seen any evidence to make me believe in it, it certainly isn't logical if it does exist, and if it isn't logical, it's worthless.

Congratulations, you're the one Vulcan on earth. Problem is that everyone else here is a feeling human being. We're discussing human law and not Vulcan law.

Feeling is a waste of effort.

The lady DID receive the compensation (STD) and it will probably stay her for life . . . a bitter remembrance of the fault of not checking with her partner before the act ☺

If it were rape I would agree that financial compensation should be paid, but unfortunately, rapist's generally are not financially viable individuals?

What about if they're a carrier? If they have no clue they are infected with diseases such as HIV and they pass it down to someone else then it's not their fault. However, if they know they're infected and they infect someone else then they should pay compensation.

Should have used better judgement.

Correct. If you know you have an STD you should give the courtesy of informing potential sexual partners so precautions can be made. The man here used very poor judgement.