There’s quite a bit of slut shaming going on in this thread.
I’m a bit of a doofus, what am I missing? My read is that in general the view is she’s being extraordinarily careless about her germs not so much that she’s easy. And the guys are dumb predatory types. What are you seeing?
l call shenanigans
This is not slut shaming. This is horny guys taking advantage of a woman.
Remember:
- The 1st guy say a woman that looked like she was on a multiple day binge and chose to feed her pot and beer - then fuck her - “twice.” The first time covered the second time not. This smacks to me of,
“Outta jimmies, don’t wanna go to the store, fuck it let’s go.” You spin the wheel you take your chances.
- If the main question is “would you have if you had known” then, it seems to me, it cuts both ways.
Crown - "Would you have had sex with her if you knew she was HIV+?
Him “No.”
How about;
Crown - “Would you have had sex with him if you knew he’d raped a 13 year-old?”
Her - “No.”
Whose the victim? In his case he was potentially exposed to a life threating disease (i.e. HIV/AIDS)
In her case she was exposed to a potentially life threating partner (i.e. convicted rapist)
Neither disclosed the dangers to the other. It’s a wash.
- The 2nd guy PAID her to let him lick her box without protection. It may need pointing out that he was 60 years old.and ought to have known enough to protect himself.
I’ve paid for sex more than once (and not expensive sex at that) and we have BOTH insisted on protection. You find a hooker that’ll let you go down with out a dam; run for the fucking hills.
- 50 year-old married guy wandered into a “happy, cheerful, smiling” dalliance without a strung-out chick that talked weather and then jumped into a van with a stranger in order to fuck.
He is/was married and he had unprotected sex with a scuzzy stranger. What did he expose his wife to? Did he think, "Jesus I could get a disease and pass it on to my wife inadvertently - mayhaps I should bolt into the convenience-FUCKING-store and blow a buck or two on latex.
Nope, he thought, “this is interesting, we’re going to have sex.” and he went “with the flow.”
Sorry bud, I run into a chick that basically says, “Nice day huh? Wanna fuck?” I’m going to beat a hasty retreat. Especially if I’m fucking married!
And if he’ll fuck around on his wife that casually - though he was kind enough to force $20 onto her so she could eat - this time then I’m willing to bet he has had a string.
Again, you spin the wheel you take your chances.
Basically, at least from my point of view, the point is; you saw a high risk situation and you chose to engage. You may have done this a thousand times with no ill effects but this time you got a good scare.
Smarten the fuck up, thank whomever that you dodged it, and wear a fucking helmet.
This has been a PSA by Zeke N. Destroi
His crime was being so obviously handsome that a woman of discerning taste threw away all her high breeding and manners to drag him into a van for sex. It really is a crime t be THAT sexy.
(Hint: If a drunken stoner hops into your van for sex without even asking… odds are you are not the first, not the fiftieth, and probably aren’t even the 100th man to knock her off her feet. You are sharing the germs of all those who came before. So, dive right in there and enjoy!)
What… you have a problem with people calling these men out for the sluts that they are? Talk about double standard!
She picked him up in the convenience store parking lot, so that ‘bolt’ would have been probably 40 feet? Maybe 100 feet away?
Jesus man, had I only run into this advice earlier my 20’s could have been so much less wholesome.
Damn you chronology!
I actually, gently, take issue with this.
Blackknight was equating people saying they got what they deserved with the movement against saying “women got what they deserved”. He is pointing out a superficial double standard but missing the larger picture; at least from my side.
I have no problem with sluts - male or female. If you can fuck like rabbit-fruitflies then by all means do so. I now know what it’s like to get off more than quarterly (with a partner) and so I say, “more power to ya!”
The problem is with the stupidity of these guys actions resulting in predictable consequences and them being referred to as “victims”. They are not victims they are Darwin Award winners in the making.
Boys will be boys and girls will be girls and sluts of every description will be sluts.
But, as I said earlier, stupidity hurts and that’s what this is. All three of them took ridiculously stupid risks and all three of them had a bullet whizz past their heads.
They should be thankful they didn’t take it square in the eyes instead going after some chick that has obviously suffered and is suffering some pretty big damage.
One time a friend and I got drunk and decided it was a good idea to jump on and off of slow-moving train cars. I was wearing a trenchcoat and, low and behold, on about my third jump the coat caught something on the train and I stalled in midair.
I had visions of pieces of me splattered all over and all other horrors associated with being mangled by a train. The coat ripped and I hit the ground unscathed - save scrapes and bruises. <----- guess what I never did again (with or without trenchcoat)
I did not sue the railway for criminal negligence for making such an obviously attractive pass-time that was so easily accessible to drunks and thus I was almost killed and suffered PTSD.
I am no at all meaning to suggest that PTSD is not a debilitating illness; if it come across that way I sincerely apologize! I’m saying that in this individual case the song seems appropriate.
What I took from it was basically, “Wow, I got lucky. Hmmmm, maybe doing dumbshit isn’t such a good idea. Maybe I ought to stop doing dumbshit.”
I haven’t entirely stopped doing dumbshit.
But I haven’t touched a train in 20 years.
100 feet?!?
Holy Heck, they should call it an inconvenience store.
**Victim 3 ** *When some scraggly, strung-out bitch, jumps into my van and strips I want to-the-window-service - you know A&W style. God damn it! Is that too much to fucking ask?
I mean, what if she comes to her senses and runs away in the 90 seconds this will take to blush at the cashier and run the fuck back out here?
Though… there may be risks.
Screw it! The biggest risk is that she isn’t here when I get back; damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead.**
Zeke
I know that would seem a biologically inappropriate quote but if you look at it on a germ vs immune system level it makes some sense*
** Fine, I just thought it was funny and I’m heading off criticism. I’m no expert but I do know the Dope 
I don’t see any “slut shaming” here. I don’t care how much somebody gets laid. The issue begins when they *purposely have unprotected sex while knowing that they carry a potentially life-threatening virus. *
It’s the men that I’m disgusted with. Especially the married one. What a dirtbag.
Kinda hard to get worked up over two losers colliding.
Here are the two SCC decisions that set out the law on HIV+ disclosure to sex partners as it presently stands in Canada:
[INDENT]R. v. D.C., 2012 SCC 48
R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584[/INDENT]
Sex without consent is sexual assault. Consent obtained fraudulently is not consent. When the sexual assault puts life in danger (e.g. reasonable possibility of transmission), it is aggravated sexual assault. The maximum penalty for aggravated sexual assault is life.
If there is no reasonable possibility of transmission (e.g. undetectable viral load or very low viral load combined with a condom) then there is no fraud vis a vis consent, and therefore no commission of a crime.
Doing stupid things doesn’t preclude them from being victims.
The gay blood donation thread has me wondering - why didn’t she just donate blood?
All donated blood is screened for HIV among many other things. You have to show ID to donate blood. Once you have donated blood with HIV once, you’re in the database and can’t donate ever again.
Does too. Doing ignorant things wouldn’t preclude them from being victims. These guys weren’t ignorant about STDs and how to not get 'em.
Ah, good point. Thanks.
In law, this is right.
There’s the classic hypothetical of a young woman who goes to a scuzzy bar alone in a bad part of town, gets drunk, leaves alone, and gets sexually assaulted. That may have been stupid behaviour on her part, but it doesn’t mean she can be sexually assaulted. The accused can’t recite all those facts and say it was her fault she got assaulted, and that his actions weren’t a criminal act. If there’s no consent, it’s sexual assault.
As Little Nemo and Muffin have pointed out, in Canada having unprotected sex without disclosing your HIV infection can negate the consent of the other person, and you’re committing aggravated sexual assault, which is the allegation here. Stupidity by the other person does not amount to a substitute for consent.
As well, Canada’s sexual assault law is gender neutral. The same principles apply whether it is man on woman, woman on man, man on man, or woman on woman. So the comments by some of the posters about horny men getting what they deserve have no relevance in a court of law.
Thank-you for chiming in 
I get that just because someone puts themselves in a dangerous situation doesn’t mean that they “asked for it.”
I am by no means a lawyer or anything close (except a PhD in Law and Order)
but isn’t contributory negligence a consideration?
Another question I have [url=Latest News - Breaking News Stories | Simcoe.com] relates to this quote["/url] “the Crown must also prove that the three alleged victims would have chosen not to have sex had they known.”
If this is the case - granted it is overly simplified for public consumption I suspect - then couldn’t a married man be guilty of an offense if he slept with a woman who he had told he was single?
Crown: Would you have had sex with him if you’d known he was married?
Woman: No.
Maybe this topic should be a thread on its own, but I’m curious about where the line is for a lie leading to sex constituting sexual assault.
Nope. Contributory negligence is part of the law of civil negligence. It’s not part of the criminal law. An assault is the intentional application of force to another person, without their consent. Whether that other person stupidly put themselves in a dangerous situation is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
If this is the case - granted it is overly simplified for public consumption I suspect - then couldn’t a married man be guilty of an offense if he slept with a woman who he had told he was single?
Crown: Would you have had sex with him if you’d known he was married?
Woman: No.
Maybe this topic should be a thread on its own, but I’m curious about where the line is for a lie leading to sex constituting sexual assault.
[/QUOTE]
The Supreme Court has held in the cases mentioned upthread that not every lie or failure to disclose will negate consent, but only those that pose a risk to the individual’s life or health:
Sleeping with a married man that you thought was single doesn’t carry that risk; sleeping with someone that you think is HIV free but who is HIV positive, and has concealed that fact, does pose a threat to life/health. Therefore that person’s failure to disclose their HIV status can negate consent.