Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Rachel Bronwyn · **#101** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Aug 21, 2011 11:20 am

Why the fuck is holding victims of jerks responsible for the harm done to them so popular?

Instead of condemning the actions of the person who knew there was a risk they'd transmit an STI to their partner and did nothing to prevent it, let's shit on the person they transmitted it to. After all, they were far too trusting. How foolish!

Being trusting does not mean you deserve a sexually transmitted infection or that transmitting it to you isn't wrong.

willhud9 wrote:
Paul G wrote:Willhud, it's not in the law but the man has been jailed? Think about that for a second.

"pleading guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm"

No Paul that is why he is in jail. Which if I was a DA I'd call Bullshit on.

Except that is EXACTLY what he did.

I can transmit the Herpes Simplex Virus 1 by snogging my girlfriend. I can transmit the virus by my saliva transmitting into someone's body.

Which isn't what we're talking about. Thanks for the derail.

If my underwear which had any traces of semen dry or wet came into contact with my girlfriends Vagina I can pass the HSV-2 Virus to her as well.

Oh, for fuck's sake. What the hell kind of sex ed did you recieve? Any? YOU CAN'T CONTRACT HSV-2 FROM DRY FABRIC. THE VIRUS CAN'T SURVIVE. It doesn't even survive long on a nice, warm moist towel! The notion you can contract herpes from warm, moist fabrics is exclusively theoretical. The notion any herpes virus can survive on a dry surface is flat out wrong. You cannot transmit HSV-2 via the crust in your undies!

You were talking about how regrettable premarital sex is a matter of weeks ago and now you're trying to pass yourself off as an authority on matters of safe sex. Give me a break.

Next the only bodily harm it has caused her was the fact that as of now it(the virus) is incurable. The virus is not a lethal virus of itself and has no painful repercussions aside from the sore outbreaks

Kind of a big fucking deal, actually.

which thanks to medicine has been reduced drastically and varies from individual anyways.

And are always extraordinarily unpleasant.

The point is the only reason he is in jail is for causing bodily harm.

Which is an EXCELLENT reason for someone's ass to be thrown in jail.

Transmitting a disease is a very fine line for what constitutes bodily harm.

Not when that disease is incurable and will result in physical trauma throughout the rest of one's life.

There are those in this thread who would have someone locked up for sneezing on them and giving them a bad flu. That is ass retarded and a misuse of the law.

What the hell kind of stupid comparison is that? A flu is not an incurable disease that will result in painful outbreaks for the rest of your life and prevent people from wanting to be intimate with you. A flu goes away.

People shouldn't be sneezing on others anyways. It's completely inconsiderate.

purplerat · **#102** by **purplerat** » Aug 21, 2011 12:48 pm

bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:
bioeng wrote:The term "intentional negligence" seems to be a foreign concept for some people. Apparently it's all about "personal responsibility" and "shame on your dumbass bitch" if someone ever takes advantage of you in a way that causes grievous irreparable harm.

Please bioeng share with us where somebody has said "shame on you dumbass bitch". Oh wait, nobody here has. It's just a failed attempt by you to make this a sexist issue. Don't worry, you're not the only one guilty of that.

Did I make the claim that someone has made that exact statement? Surely I saw a lot of "shame on her" and "dumbass" in reference to the woman.

I reject your accusation of any "attempt" to make it into a sexist issue. That fantasy is yours alone.

So you just normally associated "woman" with "bitch" on your own? Nice.

lucek · **#103** by **lucek** » Aug 21, 2011 3:44 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Why the fuck is holding victims of jerks responsible for the harm done to them so popular?

Instead of condemning the actions of the person who knew there was a risk they'd transmit an STI to their partner and did nothing to prevent it, let's shit on the person they transmitted it to. After all, they were far too trusting. How foolish!

Being trusting does not mean you deserve a sexually transmitted infection or that transmitting it to you isn't wrong.

Blaming the infected is wrong.

Blaming the carrier is also wrong in my opinion.

This isn't like saying a woman who was raped was asking for it. This is saying that it takes 2 to tango. In this case he engaged in risky behavior without precautions and so did she.

amok · **#104** by **amok** » Aug 21, 2011 8:59 pm

purplerat wrote:Did I miss the part where it was shown that he knew he had the disease? I very well could have missed it, but I thought he had only lied about being medically cleared, but do we know he knew he had it when he said that?

That's a good point. I went back and re-read the original story and the timeline still isn't quite clear.

David Golding, 28, was sentenced to the jail term at Northampton Crown Court last week after pleading guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm. Mr Golding, a Highways Authority traffic officer, contracted the sexually transmitted disease from a former partner.

The 24-year-old victim was diagnosed with herpes two months after starting a relationship with Mr Golding in July 2009. Despite this Golding did not admit to having the condition, only eventually disclosing his culpability shortly before the couple split months after.

The victim complained to police about contracting the disease after Golding was arrested on an allegation of assaulting her. Golding had initially claimed to have been given the all-clear from a screening clinic.

Sentencing Golding, Judge Michael Fowler said his initial refusal to admit passing on herpes “placed uncertainty in her life and caused suspicions to be cast onto others”.

Judge Fowler added, “The injury you (Golding) caused her by this infection is at least or more serious than an injury leaving a scar because it carries continued recurrence, extreme discomfort and consequences for relationships she will have in the future”.

It actually sounds to me like the timeline could be:

1) The woman contracts herpes;
2) She confronts the man;
3) He lies about getting an all-clear from a clinic.

It doesn't say he knew before the woman contracted the disease that he knew he had it.

Lots of people don't have any symptoms at all, so that's not completely unrealistic. But I think it would be unrealistic to assume that he wouldn't use that as a defence if it were the case. It would be a good defence, because a lie afterward, during a confrontation, would just be a lie that didn't cause the physical damage. If he was convicted for that, it would be unjust. It must have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he had herpes beforehand. The story doesn't that that though.

And because the story is quite badly written, I'm also not even sure if the 14-month sentence is specifically for the STI situation, or if it's part and parcel with a sentence for other the alleged assault that was mentioned.

bioeng · **#105** by **bioeng** » Aug 22, 2011 10:49 pm

purplerat wrote:
bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:
Please bioeng share with us where somebody has said "shame on you dumbass bitch". Oh wait, nobody here has. It's just a failed attempt by you to make this a sexist issue. Don't worry, you're not the only one guilty of that.

Did I make the claim that someone has made that exact statement? Surely I saw a lot of "shame on her" and "dumbass" in reference to the woman.

I reject your accusation of any "attempt" to make it into a sexist issue. That fantasy is yours alone.

So you just normally associated "woman" with "bitch" on your own? Nice.

No, but that seems to be what many people think of the woman based on some of the responses that were primarily geared towards deriding her while not even mentioning the jackass who rightfully got 14 years. I don't see how that makes me being the one who makes the association. It isn't my problem you don't know what quotation marks are for.

purplerat · **#106** by **purplerat** » Aug 22, 2011 11:11 pm

bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:
bioeng wrote:

Did I make the claim that someone has made that exact statement? Surely I saw a lot of "shame on her" and "dumbass" in reference to the woman.

I reject your accusation of any "attempt" to make it into a sexist issue. That fantasy is yours alone.

So you just normally associated "woman" with "bitch" on your own? Nice.

No, but that seems to be what many people think of the woman based on some of the responses that were primarily geared towards deriding her while not even mentioning the jackass who rightfully got 14 years. I don't see how that makes me being the one who makes the association.

he's not the one complaining about contracting the STD. Obviously he got the disease from somebody else so he's just as much a dumbass (when will the person he contracted from be arrested?). But my question still stands, can you point to any post which indicates that "what many people think of the woman" is that she is a "bitch".

It isn't my problem you don't know what quotation marks are for.

Quotation marks mean you are relaying something somebody else has said. Question still stands, who are you quoting?

bioeng · **#107** by **bioeng** » Aug 22, 2011 11:26 pm

purplerat wrote:

It isn't my problem you don't know what quotation marks are for.

Quotation marks mean you are relaying something somebody else has said. Question still stands, who are you quoting?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/answers/how/how-to-use-quotation-marks.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sarcastic+quotation+marks

purplerat · **#108** by **purplerat** » Aug 22, 2011 11:44 pm

bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:

It isn't my problem you don't know what quotation marks are for.

Quotation marks mean you are relaying something somebody else has said. Question still stands, who are you quoting?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/answers/how/how-to-use-quotation-marks.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sarcastic+quotation+marks

Oh, so you were sarcastically calling her a bitch. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt thinking maybe you were mistakenly quoting somebody else calling her a bitch.

bioeng · **#109** by **bioeng** » Aug 23, 2011 12:21 am

purplerat wrote:
bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:

Quotation marks mean you are relaying something somebody else has said. Question still stands, who are you quoting?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/answers/how/how-to-use-quotation-marks.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sarcastic+quotation+marks

Oh, so you were sarcastically calling her a bitch. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt thinking maybe you were mistakenly quoting somebody else calling her a bitch.

Clearly not, the usage of the quote was sarcastic and hence not a direct literal quotation of what somebody else said, but the context of my sentence implied that this is the attitude that I think is being demonstrated by the posters who spent aimed most of their responses at deriding the victim.

If you want another example, take one where a Christian fundamentalist proclaims that allowing gay marriage means "his rights are being infringed upon". If gay rights activist responds sarcastically and says "Oh noes, my rights to infringe upon the rights of people I disagree with are being infringed upon", are they directly quoting word for word what the fundamentalist has proclaimed? No they are not. Is the gay rights activist proclaiming his own opinion and lamenting about not being able violate another person's right? No they are not. Clearly all he is doing is making a mockery out of the homophobes position that his rights are somehow being infringed upon.

purplerat · **#110** by **purplerat** » Aug 23, 2011 12:46 am

bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:
bioeng wrote:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/answers/how/how-to-use-quotation-marks.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sarcastic+quotation+marks

Oh, so you were sarcastically calling her a bitch. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt thinking maybe you were mistakenly quoting somebody else calling her a bitch.

Clearly not, the usage of the quote was sarcastic and hence not a direct literal quotation of what somebody else said, but the context of my sentence implied that this is the attitude that I think is being demonstrated by the posters who spent aimed most of their responses at deriding the victim.

If you want another example, take one where a Christian fundamentalist proclaims that allowing gay marriage means "his rights are being infringed upon". If gay rights activist responds sarcastically and says "Oh noes, my rights to infringe upon the rights of people I disagree with are being infringed upon", are they directly quoting word for word what the fundamentalist has proclaimed? No they are not. Is the gay rights activist proclaiming his own opinion and lamenting about not being able violate another person's right? No they are not. Clearly all he is doing is making a mockery out of the homophobes position that his rights are somehow being infringed upon.

Who? I don't give a shit about some abstract, nothing to do with this thread example of a fundamentalist Christian (which I'm pretty sure nobody who has responded here even is). If you think somebody expressed this attitude have the guts to say who and reference a post. It's pretty simply and does require any far reaching wrangling about fundamentalist Christians or homosexuals. You made a claim - that a certain attitude was expressed. I'm asking that you back that claim up by referencing where and by who that attitude was expressed.

bioeng · **#111** by **bioeng** » Aug 23, 2011 1:31 am

in addition to some of theropods namecalling:

If this was a standard college age relationship and they were dating less than a year than shame on her for being stupid

If this was a long term relationship and they decided to have sex, still shame on her for not checking.

Negligence my ass. She was negligent when she did not make sure she took proper safety measures before engaging in sex.

The fault is on her.

willhud9 wrote:Meaning both were dumb fucks and both now have learned a lesson.

Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

This one by you is especially gold:

purplerat wrote: IMO, anybody who doesn't think this way in this day and age is an idiot and largely deserves what they get.

Even if someone is in a relationship built on trust, apparently trust doesn't mean anything to you. And not only that, but unless her partner gets a weekly medical certificate clearing him of STDs every time they decide to have sex, they DESERVE what they get. :roll:

I don't know about you, but this gives me the impression that not only do you have no sympathy for the woman, but you are almost gloating at the lifetime of suffering they'll have to endure now. I stand by my statement.

purplerat · **#112** by **purplerat** » Aug 23, 2011 1:48 am

bioeng wrote:in addition to some of theropods namecalling:

If this was a standard college age relationship and they were dating less than a year than shame on her for being stupid

If this was a long term relationship and they decided to have sex, still shame on her for not checking.

Negligence my ass. She was negligent when she did not make sure she took proper safety measures before engaging in sex.

The fault is on her.

willhud9 wrote:Meaning both were dumb fucks and both now have learned a lesson.

Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

This one by you is especially gold:

purplerat wrote: IMO, anybody who doesn't think this way in this day and age is an idiot and largely deserves what they get.

Even if someone is in a relationship built on trust, apparently trust doesn't mean anything to you. And not only that, but unless her partner gets a weekly medical certificate clearing him of STDs every time they decide to have sex, they DESERVE what they get. I don't know about you, but this gives me the impression that not only do you have no sympathy for the woman, but you are almost gloating at the lifetime of suffering they'll have to endure now. I stand by my statement.

Where did anybody suggest she was a "bitch"? Oh wait you injected that word. If this story had been about a gay man would you have injected the word "fag" or if it were a black person "niggar"? You tried to inject inflammatory language into the discussion because you think it makes your point stronger. It doesn't. If you don't think this person was responsible for their own sexual health then fine debate that. Don't throw around words that try and paint the debate as something it's not.

bioeng · **#113** by **bioeng** » Aug 23, 2011 2:04 am

purplerat wrote:
Where did anybody suggest she was a "bitch"? Oh wait you injected that word. If this story had been about a gay man would you have injected the word "fag" or if it were a black person "niggar"?

Sure, if I was referring sarcastically to the positions of a racist or homophobe, I would've done so. It may not be the exact wording used by any specific racist/homophobe that I may be referencing to, but their attitude is reminiscent of many who would use those terms.

theropod · **#114** by **theropod** » Aug 23, 2011 2:13 am

bioeng wrote:in addition to some of theropods namecalling:
snip...

Hey, if you're gonna call me out use my words as they appear and in the context in which they were posted. Don't take what I feel is a cheap shot that is based on one word that I wrote and now buried several posts deep in the thread. K?

RS

purplerat · **#115** by **purplerat** » Aug 23, 2011 2:14 am

So you think those comments were sexist? Funny, seeing as my comment which you quoted was purposely written without referencing gender at all.

***ETA*** in addition to my non-gender based quote the only other person you attributed a quote to was Will, who also did not reference gender and made a point to blame both parties. Please try debating this issue on the issue and not making it something it's not.

bioeng · **#116** by **bioeng** » Aug 23, 2011 2:19 am

purplerat wrote:So you think those comments were sexist? Funny, seeing as my comment which you quoted was purposely written without referencing gender at all.

***ETA*** in addition to my non-gender based quote the only other person you attributed a quote to was Will, who also did not reference gender and made a point to blame both parties. Please try debating this issue on the issue and not making it something it's not.

bioeng wrote:

I reject your accusation of any "attempt" to make it into a sexist issue. That fantasy is yours alone.

willhud9 · **#117** by **willhud9** » Aug 23, 2011 2:24 am

Also needless to say, as much as I like debating the unpopular point of view, I would not consider calling her a bitch. o.0 I feel genuinely sorry for her. Herpes is not a fun virus to deal with.

bioeng · **#118** by **bioeng** » Aug 23, 2011 2:28 am

theropod wrote:
bioeng wrote:in addition to some of theropods namecalling:
snip...

Hey, if you're gonna call me out use my words as they appear and in the context in which they were posted. Don't take what I feel is a cheap shot that is based on one word that I wrote and now buried several posts deep in the thread. K?

RS

I know that you agreed with the decision. I just didn't feel the namecalling was warranted for. I do not think its fair to refer to people as a "dumbass" for putting some trust in someone you're in an intimate relationship with or to compare that to walking down dark alleys alone. That, and the overly heavy emphasis that was put on criticizing the woman. That goes for will especially. I mean sure.. after a couple of posts (after he said "the blame is on her"), he said they are "both learned a lesson", but pretty much the entire time before that all I heard was "shame on her", and "negligence my ass" (as if insinuating that the man had no responsibility at all). Make what you will of it. Perhaps I exaggerated (though I certainly didnt try to make it into a sexist issue), but I found the attitude and the namecalling wholly inappropriate and arrogant.

purplerat · **#119** by **purplerat** » Aug 23, 2011 2:30 am

bioeng wrote:
purplerat wrote:So you think those comments were sexist? Funny, seeing as my comment which you quoted was purposely written without referencing gender at all.

***ETA*** in addition to my non-gender based quote the only other person you attributed a quote to was Will, who also did not reference gender and made a point to blame both parties. Please try debating this issue on the issue and not making it something it's not.

bioeng wrote:

I reject your accusation of any "attempt" to make it into a sexist issue. That fantasy is yours alone.

me wrote:
If this story had been about a gay man would you have injected the word "fag" or if it were a black person "niggar"?

you wrote:
Sure, if I was referring sarcastically to the positions of a racist or homophobe, I would've done so.

So if you would only use those words when referring sarcastically to racist/homophoic positions why would you use "bitch" if not referencing a sexist position? See how logic works.

bioeng · **#120** by **bioeng** » Aug 23, 2011 2:33 am

"Bitch" is not an exclusively sexist term nor does it's usage necessarily imply sexism, nor are women the only typical recipients of the term and when they are, it isn't always for sexist reasons.

Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Re: Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Who is online