Man jailed for 14 months after giving girlfriend herpes

Emmeline · **#41** by **Emmeline** » Aug 19, 2011 8:15 pm

willhud9 wrote:The girl hopefully now knows not to take a dick up her vagina unless she KNOWS that the dick is clean. Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

I hope you'll demand weekly certificates from any sex partner you have to ensure that they haven't deliberately withheld the fact that they have herpes. If not, why not?

purplerat · **#42** by **purplerat** » Aug 19, 2011 8:20 pm

Until I know somebody really well I assume every hole I stick my dick into is a disgusting cesspool of disease and filth (and as fertile as a rabbit to boot). IMO, anybody who doesn't think this way in this day and age is an idiot and largely deserves what they get.

orpheus · **#43** by **orpheus** » Aug 19, 2011 9:17 pm

Grey area. Depends on the degree of trust one could reasonably expect in the relationship. I'm an idiot if I contract an STD from a new partner without insisting on seeing test results. On the other hand, if I embark on a long-term relationship and we're both clean at the start, and several years in she has an affair, picks up an STD, doesn't tell me, and she infects me, then I think the blame falls squarely on her. In longer relationships it should be reasonable to assume you can trust your partner.

By the way, when asking a new partner to get tested before we jump into bed, I've found it reduces the awkwardness to suggest we both get tested.

The_Metatron · **#44** by **The_Metatron** » Aug 19, 2011 9:19 pm

Teat results?

orpheus · **#45** by **orpheus** » Aug 19, 2011 9:22 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Teat results?

Typographical Freudian Slip. Edited it as quickly as I could.

(Damn you for being so observant!)

bioeng · **#46** by **bioeng** » Aug 19, 2011 9:31 pm

willhud9 wrote:No. I am arguing against the law. He has equal fault on the matter for being a dick. But that's the thing. It is equal fault. Meaning both were dumb fucks and both now have learned a lesson. The guy should be let off though and cleared of charges. The girl hopefully now knows not to take a dick up her vagina unless she KNOWS that the dick is clean. Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

If I offered you a drink laced with drugs like ketamine without informing you of it and you started to suffer from paralysis and numbness, I highly doubt you'd hold the same opinion. If I painted your house and knew the paint had lead, asbestos, and various carcinogens are you telling me you wouldn't press criminal charges because you weren't "responsible" enough to ask me whether the paint was safe? I'm sure you wouldn't, being all responsible as you are. I can name countless more examples where if someone doesn't provide others with the proper safety precautions or knowingly exposes them to harm, they could be spending years if not decades behind bars. The guy at the very least deserves to get sued the fuck out of for negligence and knowingly causing harm to another person, though I think jailtime is far more appropriate and very fiting in this case.

The woman at best has a lack of responsibility when it comes to personal safety and health. The man on the other hand has committed an act of criminal negligence. Good for him, I love the fact that he'll now be rotting a cell. The piece of shit more than deserves it.

MoonLit · **#47** by **MoonLit** » Aug 19, 2011 9:42 pm

orpheus wrote:

By the way, when asking a new partner to get tested before we jump into bed, I've found it reduces the awkwardness to suggest we both get tested.

Of course, only fair and smart as well. :cheers:

orpheus · **#48** by **orpheus** » Aug 19, 2011 9:47 pm

Valden wrote:
orpheus wrote:

By the way, when asking a new partner to get tested before we jump into bed, I've found it reduces the awkwardness to suggest we both get tested.

Of course, only fair and smart as well.

Right. And it breaks the ice around an awkward subject. She may very well be wondering how to ask me to get tested.

The_Metatron · **#49** by **The_Metatron** » Aug 19, 2011 9:49 pm

orpheus wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Teat results?

Typographical Freudian Slip. Edited it as quickly as I could.

(Damn you for being so observant!)

i knew it was. Amusing typo, though.

Never had my teats checked.

willhud9 · **#50** by **willhud9** » Aug 19, 2011 11:13 pm

Emmeline wrote:
willhud9 wrote:The girl hopefully now knows not to take a dick up her vagina unless she KNOWS that the dick is clean. Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

I hope you'll demand weekly certificates from any sex partner you have to ensure that they haven't deliberately withheld the fact that they have herpes. If not, why not?

No, I make sure that any of my sex partners do not have a sexually transmitted disease before I engage in sexual activity with them. It is plain fucking simple. I do not stick my dick into a girl's vagina without knowing through medical notice that that given vagina is clean.

I wouldn't have to worry about my girlfriend lying about not having Herpes because I would have received doctor verification. If my girlfriend did not comply with getting the examination than we do not have sex. Again. Plain and fucking simple.

willhud9 · **#51** by **willhud9** » Aug 19, 2011 11:27 pm

bioeng wrote:
willhud9 wrote:No. I am arguing against the law. He has equal fault on the matter for being a dick. But that's the thing. It is equal fault. Meaning both were dumb fucks and both now have learned a lesson. The guy should be let off though and cleared of charges. The girl hopefully now knows not to take a dick up her vagina unless she KNOWS that the dick is clean. Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

If I offered you a drink laced with drugs like ketamine without informing you of it and you started to suffer from paralysis and numbness, I highly doubt you'd hold the same opinion.

Actually I would. It's my fucking responsibility for safety and common sense. If some random bloke (no offense mate) offered me a drink that I did not see get poured my suspicions are raised. Now if my friend offered me a laced drink I would be severely wondering why the hell I was friends with the person in the first place. But again that all comes back to me. My responsibility. But that is irrelevant to a case of sexual activity. If they were in a relationship both of them should have immediately went and checked for any stds. It's common sense. Also your case is moot because the use of ketamine illicitly is illegal on its own. Regardless of you spiking a drink with it. You are using a substance supposed to be handled by doctors and medical personnel, not to drug someone. Your act is illegal regardless of the intention.

If I painted your house and knew the paint had lead, asbestos, and various carcinogens are you telling me you wouldn't press criminal charges because you weren't "responsible" enough to ask me whether the paint was safe?

Like above, I make sure I check the type of paint, thinner, etc. that goes into my house and is used. I actually DO use common sense when it comes to such substances. But again, the use of leaded paint in commercial painting is illegal in of itself. The act of sex with an STD is NOT and it should not be.

I'm sure you wouldn't, being all responsible as you are. I can name countless more examples where if someone doesn't provide others with the proper safety precautions or knowingly exposes them to harm, they could be spending years if not decades behind bars. The guy at the very least deserves to get sued the fuck out of for negligence and knowingly causing harm to another person, though I think jailtime is far more appropriate and very fiting in this case.

Suffice to say I disagree. The guy was wrong for not telling, but can I get sued for shaking your hand and passing you the flu virus because I did not tell you I was sick? I'd hope not. Otherwise this world has gone to shit.

The woman at best has a lack of responsibility when it comes to personal safety and health. The man on the other hand has committed an act of criminal negligence. Good for him, I love the fact that he'll now be rotting a cell. The piece of shit more than deserves it.

Right. Because you know him personally and you know everything about him. So he obviously deserves to rot in a cell. :thumbup:

Logic baffles me but okay.

purplerat · **#52** by **purplerat** » Aug 20, 2011 1:08 am

bioeng wrote:
If I offered you a drink laced with drugs like ketamine without informing you of it and you started to suffer from paralysis and numbness, I highly doubt you'd hold the same opinion. If I painted your house and knew the paint had lead, asbestos, and various carcinogens are you telling me you wouldn't press criminal charges because you weren't "responsible" enough to ask me whether the paint was safe? I'm sure you wouldn't, being all responsible as you are. I can name countless more examples where if someone doesn't provide others with the proper safety precautions or knowingly exposes them to harm, they could be spending years if not decades behind bars. The guy at the very least deserves to get sued the fuck out of for negligence and knowingly causing harm to another person, though I think jailtime is far more appropriate and very fiting in this case.

The woman at best has a lack of responsibility when it comes to personal safety and health. The man on the other hand has committed an act of criminal negligence. Good for him, I love the fact that he'll now be rotting a cell. The piece of shit more than deserves it.

Those examples are not really comparable because both would be illegal regardless of what you told the other person and possibly even what the person doing those things knows beforehand. Having sex while infected with an STD isn't on it's own illegal. There already is an assumed personal responsibility to protect one's self from such things. Otherwise we would be prosecuting hundreds of thousands if not millions for spreading STDs, never mind all of the other infectious diseases which people regularly spread to unknowing "victims". The only time it really does become criminal is when somebody acts with especial disregard for the safety of others. I don't believe lying and saying he had been cleared is on it's own sufficient negligence unless he knew he was infected and lied. That would be pretty hard to prove though.

bioeng · **#53** by **bioeng** » Aug 20, 2011 1:40 am

willhud9 wrote:
bioeng wrote:
willhud9 wrote:No. I am arguing against the law. He has equal fault on the matter for being a dick. But that's the thing. It is equal fault. Meaning both were dumb fucks and both now have learned a lesson. The guy should be let off though and cleared of charges. The girl hopefully now knows not to take a dick up her vagina unless she KNOWS that the dick is clean. Idiotic people who love to sue. Makes me sick.

If I offered you a drink laced with drugs like ketamine without informing you of it and you started to suffer from paralysis and numbness, I highly doubt you'd hold the same opinion.

Actually I would. It's my fucking responsibility for safety and common sense. If some random bloke (no offense mate) offered me a drink that I did not see get poured my suspicions are raised.

Ah, well then you're in the minority, because the vast majority of people would expect some sort of guarantee of safety or security or a forewarning of the risks before another individual takes them along for some activity. Whether you saw me pour the drink is irrelevant, I could easily have laced it beforehand, and all my "regular" customers knew about it, but a bloke like you stumbled into my bar and asked for a shot of whiskey, it is pretty reasonable for you to have an expectation that there isn't anything else in the drink that may bring you harm. Similarly if I am employed at a national park refuge and serve as a field or trail guide for visitors and we are to cross a wooden bridge, and I do not bother mentioning that the left side of the pathway has creaky boards that cannot withstand greater than 20 kg, and you and someone you fall through it and get killed or injured, I would not be held responsible? Like all libertarians who have no sense of empathy or social responsibility, you have a very sick and pathological obsession with "personal responsibility" that pretty much elicits a worldview that anyone who is not paranoid about making precautions with every breath that they take deserves to get exploited, used, or grievously harmed while anyone intentionally or proactively allowing any of these things to happen should be let off scot free. Disgusting and inhumane doesn't even begin to sum it up.

Also your case is moot because the use of ketamine illicitly is illegal on its own. Regardless of you spiking a drink with it. You are using a substance supposed to be handled by doctors and medical personnel, not to drug someone. Your act is illegal regardless of the intention.

Well no, it isn't moot, because you're suggesting what ought to be based on what is. Personally, I think drugs should be decriminalized, but everyone should have some minimal guarantee of protection form negligent harmful practices. This is why we have food safety inspections, building safety standards, required nutrition facts labels of certain foods. You can't simply argue on the merits of a law of something based on what the law already is (unless you're arguing about the interpretation of the law). By that same measure, there's nothing to discuss here in this thread either, since what the man did was apparently "already illegal", and hence its why he got 14 months.

If I painted your house and knew the paint had lead, asbestos, and various carcinogens are you telling me you wouldn't press criminal charges because you weren't "responsible" enough to ask me whether the paint was safe?

Like above, I make sure I check the type of paint, thinner, etc. that goes into my house and is used. I actually DO use common sense when it comes to such substances.

Really, and being the uber personally responsible common sense type of guy that you are, you would also go out of your way to take the paint to toxicology lab before getting your house painted? You don't ever expect any product, brand, or private service to adhere to basic safety standards or inform consumers of any risks? Let me guess, you also think financial fraud should not be criminalized and think people who run ponzi schemes like Bernie Madoff should be let off the hook as well?

But again, the use of leaded paint in commercial painting is illegal in of itself. The act of sex with an STD is NOT and it should not be.

In the United STates, maybe. The issue here is not having sex with an STD, the issue is causing grievous harm to another person by intentionally passing on an STD with the foreknowledge that you have acquired it. The act of having sex with an STD is not a crime, but knowingly passing on a condition or lying about being "cleared" (or for that matter doing any sort of gratuitous harm) to another person without their consent, is in fact a crime.

I'm sure you wouldn't, being all responsible as you are. I can name countless more examples where if someone doesn't provide others with the proper safety precautions or knowingly exposes them to harm, they could be spending years if not decades behind bars. The guy at the very least deserves to get sued the fuck out of for negligence and knowingly causing harm to another person, though I think jailtime is far more appropriate and very fiting in this case.

Suffice to say I disagree. The guy was wrong for not telling, but can I get sued for shaking your hand and passing you the flu virus because I did not tell you I was sick? I'd hope not. Otherwise this world has gone to shit.

That would depend on the type of flu and whether it is treatable or curable. Hell, if we were talking about some mutant form of ebola with the capability of airborne transmission and some irresponsible asshole was knowingly walking around and exposing others to it, life in prison would be very fitting.

The woman at best has a lack of responsibility when it comes to personal safety and health. The man on the other hand has committed an act of criminal negligence. Good for him, I love the fact that he'll now be rotting a cell. The piece of shit more than deserves it.

Right. Because you know him personally and you know everything about him. So he obviously deserves to rot in a cell. Logic baffles me but okay.

Well hey, by that same token you sure like to be judgemental of victims of crime and negligence by screaming "shame" on them for getting used and exploited by irresponsible jackasses. Somehow, in your warped view of the world, given your evidently pathological need to antagonize and spit at victims of negligent criminal behavior.

Durro · **#54** by **Durro** » Aug 20, 2011 11:16 am

bioeng wrote: [snip] Like all libertarians who have no sense of empathy or social responsibility, you have a very sick and pathological obsession with "personal responsibility" that pretty much elicits a worldview that anyone who is not paranoid about making precautions with every breath that they take deserves to get exploited, used, or grievously harmed while anyone intentionally or proactively allowing any of these things to happen should be let off scot free. Disgusting and inhumane doesn't even begin to sum it up.
[snip]
...in your warped view of the world, given your evidently pathological need to antagonize and spit at victims of negligent criminal behavior.

!

MODNOTE
Bioeng, the above post contains remarks which are inflammatory and personally insulting. I will direct you to the forum rules and in particular, the part which asks members NOT to :-

c. post personal attacks or insults towards other members
and
e. attempt to inflame or provoke another member(s)

As you have previously received moderator advice over similar issues on a few occasions, you have now earned your 1st warning for inflammatory posting and personal attack/insult. I strongly recommend that you avoid further personalizations like the ones above and stick to addressing the argument, not the person making it, so you don't incur further sanctions.

If you or any other members have any issues with this, please PM myself or another Mod, or take your issues to our Feedback forum. But I ask that members please don't derail this thread with discussion over moderation.

Thanks,

Durro

Nostalgia · **#55** by **Nostalgia** » Aug 20, 2011 12:05 pm

willhud9 wrote:If some random bloke (no offense mate)...

Bloke? Mate?

Have British colloquialisms entered the American vocabulary to such an extent? :grin:

nojesusknowpeace · **#56** by **nojesusknowpeace** » Aug 20, 2011 12:51 pm

Great...now disease is a criminal offense.
Brilliant.
Where are they going to place all of the offenders?

willhud9 · **#57** by **willhud9** » Aug 20, 2011 4:09 pm

MacIver wrote:
willhud9 wrote:If some random bloke (no offense mate)...

Bloke? Mate?

Have British colloquialisms entered the American vocabulary to such an extent?

I spent a lot of summers over in Sheffield to visit family and friends.

It's also why colour, favourite, armour, etc. are spelled like that instead of color, favorite, armor. It drives my English professors mad!

Teague · **#58** by **Teague** » Aug 20, 2011 7:20 pm

AndreD wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
AndreD wrote:

If someone had sex with you without first informing you they had an STD then you could sue for negligence. I'm not sure if it should be a criminal matter though. Perhaps criminal prosecution could be a relevant option if malice was involved, rather than just negligence.

That would probably have worked when sex was considered an act of consummation of a relationship. But in today's society that's not negligence. There could be many factors which lead a guy not to disclose that information i.e love, acceptance, sex, etc. The woman was obviously in a relationship with the man, but we are offered no type of information regarding the type of relationship. If this was a standard college age relationship and they were dating less than a year than shame on her for being stupid and engaging in sexual activity without knowing the history of status of the partner she is engaging in sex with. If this was a long term relationship and they decided to have sex, still shame on her for not checking. I expect that from high school students, not from fully grown adults. 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.

If he was aware that he has an infectious disease, and given that the eventual likely consequence of having unprotected sex would be infecting his sexual partner, he was negligent in not taking adequate action to prevent or warn of the likely consequence of infection.

It doesn't matter if he didn't want to disclose it due to "love, acceptance, sex etc.". He was careless, and due to that preventable carelessness he caused serious harm to another person.
If there was no malice then criminal or punitive damages should not be involved, but he should be made to pay actual damages, including the cost of any antivirals related to the infection which are needed over her lifetime.

And he should have insisted on using a condom!

Teague · **#59** by **Teague** » Aug 20, 2011 7:30 pm

AFAIK this wan't a random bloke, they knew each other. It seems people are arguing "I never hit him, it was my fist!" You give someone an incurable disease, with the foreknowledge of having it, go rot in a cell. Perhaps if there was some accountability here people would be a little more responsible as well.

Strontium Dog · **#60** by **Strontium Dog** » Aug 20, 2011 7:33 pm

It's a doubly stupid ruling because it incentivises ignorance. Only the knowledge of having an STD appears to be enough to convict. So if you have an incurable STD, you're now better off not knowing about it. Absolutely ridiculous.

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