http://dailyfiasco.com/2011/05/11/whos-got-the-herp/
Quote: NareedI vaguely recall saying something about drugs, "partying" and increased chances of VD...
LOL you called it. Now which celeb do you think it was? My money is on Russell Brand or Michael Jordan.
Quote: DailyFiasco
Defendant, is an A-List celebrity who has appeared widely on television and film.
Defendants net worth is valued in excess of One-Hundred Million Dollars.
Michael Jordan Celebrity Invitational
Chris Tucker,
Spike Lee,
Larry David,
Jamie Foxx
and CinemaCon (
Ryan Reynolds,
Russell Brand,
Chris Hemsworth,
Jason Sudeikis
Spike Lee was here with his wife.
Larry David is Larry David.
Chris Hemsworth probably isnt worth $100 mil yet, and really,
probably neither is Jason Sudeikis.
Russell Brand is a newlywed, which doesnt necessarily mean anything, but well say makes it at least 30 percent less likely.
Rush Hour aside, were not positive Chris Tucker qualifies as an A-lister. Besides, his television roles are pretty limited.
Ryan Reynolds, however, starred in Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place (and had, at the time, a marriage on the rocks), while
Jamie Foxx had In Living Color and The Jaime Foxx Show.
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.
How much do you want to bet the guy is a fake?
Quote: JimMorrisonLOL you called it. Now which celeb do you think it was?
Considering the venue and all, probably someone I've never heard of.
Note: I'm ready to apologize if it turns out I'm wrong..and be sure to tell him that for me please.
Quote: Knuckleball3As much as I absolutely can't stand the whole TMZ buzz and such, this will be fun to follow. I hope Russell Brand, cause that will mean Katy Perry will be back on the market lol
Back on the market with herpes.
How in the world is this a legal issue? What in the hell is this deal about suing someone because YOU made a bad decision? I take this personal because I have lost a lot because of this very issue. Used to be you could walk in the woods, fish a pond, four wheel in the gravel pit, and just have a good old time. Nowadays you can't do a gee dang thing because of lawsuits, everyones worried about you getting hurt on their property and suing. How is that even possible?
Let me make a parallel. Hockey vs one night stands. If you play hockey (have sex) you are at risk. Of course there are options to to avoid the risk, which responsible people use and wear a helmet (condom). If I'm going out to play hockey (have sex) I come prepared and have a helmet (condom) with me. Occasionally, there are random pick-up games (one night stands) and I find myself unprepared. I know I'm at risk of getting a concusion (herpes) so I'll probably ask if they have a helmet (condom) available. Assuming they dont have one, I have to make a decision. Play hockey (have sex) without a helmet (condom) and risk a concusion (herpes), or opt out. Of course I dont expect to get a concusion (herpes) but shit happens. If I decide to play (have sex) without a helmet (condom) and get a concusion (herpes), then isn't that just the way the cookie crumbles? Certainly, if someone purposely swung a stick at my head with the intention to hurt (raped me) and I received a concusion (herpes) as a result, then I could understand the lawsuit, as that was a malicious act outside of the law. But if we're playing an honest game (consentual sex) and I received a concusion (herpes) in the course of it because I chose not to wear a helmet (condom), when I was fully aware of the possible danger, isn't that just too damn bad? If anyone can help educate me, I'd appreciate it because this shit really pisses me off. I do feel bad that she's now ill (I'm not a complete monster) but I do also think she should be sternly corrected by the judge and made to pay every penny of legal fees that were incurred in the course of this ridiculous suit.
Quote: FaceYou have GOT to be kidding me. Sorry for the possible derail, but I'm angry. Someone please help me to understand.
How in the world is this a legal issue? What in the hell is this deal about suing someone because YOU made a bad decision? I take this personal because I have lost a lot because of this very issue. Used to be you could walk in the woods, fish a pond, four wheel in the gravel pit, and just have a good old time. Nowadays you can't do a gee dang thing because of lawsuits, everyones worried about you getting hurt on their property and suing. How is that even possible?
Let me make a parallel. Hockey vs one night stands. If you play hockey (have sex) you are at risk. Of course there are options to to avoid the risk, which responsible people use and wear a helmet (condom). If I'm going out to play hockey (have sex) I come prepared and have a helmet (condom) with me. Occasionally, there are random pick-up games (one night stands) and I find myself unprepared. I know I'm at risk of getting a concusion (herpes) so I'll probably ask if they have a helmet (condom) available. Assuming they dont have one, I have to make a decision. Play hockey (have sex) without a helmet (condom) and risk a concusion (herpes), or opt out. Of course I dont expect to get a concusion (herpes) but shit happens. If I decide to play (have sex) without a helmet (condom) and get a concusion (herpes), then isn't that just the way the cookie crumbles? Certainly, if someone purposely swung a stick at my head with the intention to hurt (raped me) and I received a concusion (herpes) as a result, then I could understand the lawsuit, as that was a malicious act outside of the law. But if we're playing an honest game (consentual sex) and I received a concusion (herpes) in the course of it because I chose not to wear a helmet (condom), when I was fully aware of the possible danger, isn't that just too damn bad? If anyone can help educate me, I'd appreciate it because this shit really pisses me off. I do feel bad that she's now ill (I'm not a complete monster) but I do also think she should be sternly corrected by the judge and made to pay every penny of legal fees that were incurred in the course of this ridiculous suit.
I think the only part you're missing is the part where the opposing player (a-list celebrity) told you (the skank) that you couldn't get a concussion (herpes) because the rink was made of magic fluffy bunnies (lack of prior sex with other skanks).
Honestly, I agree with you. If you're the type of girl who'll let herself get talked into random drug infused sex with a celebrity, don't you at least have to consider that a couple hundred other girls have made that decision before you? Cleanliness shouldn't be the default assumption, regardless of what the extremely high and horny celebrity tells you...
Quote: JimMorrisonBack on the market with herpes.
Touche, but that's what condoms are for lol
Quote: Knuckleball3Touche, but that's what condoms are for lol
Condoms don't fully protect against the herpes virus.
Now this terrible thing happened.
What do I do?
I know! Blame someone else, and sue him! It's like hitting the lottery! It's the American way! Woo hoo!
Or shin pads....
Or gloves.....
Quote: WizardofEnglandI'd play "Hockey" with Katy Perry even if she didn't have a helmet.....
Or shin pads....
Or gloves.....
Or even a Jersey...
Quote: thecesspitCondoms don't fully protect against the herpes virus.
Web MD says
http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/news/20090713/condoms-help-cut-risk-of-genital-herpes
Apparently a 30 percent reduction if you use them 100 percent of the time.
Quote: rxwineWeb MD says
http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/news/20090713/condoms-help-cut-risk-of-genital-herpes
Apparently a 30 percent reduction if you use them 100 percent of the time.
Exactly as I stated.... condom doesn't -fully- protect against herpes. I'm certainly not condoning going bareback... just don't believe just because you've taken precautions you can't get herpes. People can practice safe sex, have a limited number of partners in their life and still get the herpes virus.
The 'good' news is, the herpes virus won't kill you, make your bits fall off or otherwise make your life unlivable. There's far worse STD's to catch, and most of those a condom does fully protect you against.
I mean... Could you file a lawsuit, clearly indicating to everyone your whorish behavior?
Sorry she got herpes, but....
If you want to have a One Night Stand, go ahead. But, the decision has consequences. Whether you are boinking an "A-lister" or the bell-hop.
And it could have ben Larry David. Who could help someone into the business better than an actual producer?
SFB
Quote: DJTeddyBearI'm an idiot. I did something that I know I should not have done. In fact, EVERYONE knows that they should not do what I did.
Now this terrible thing happened.
What do I do?
I know! Blame someone else, and sue him! It's like hitting the lottery! It's the American way! Woo hoo!
There's that.
On the other hand, there's this guy who's sick and very likely knows it. Did he even warn the girl he had herpes? If he did and she went ahead anyway, tough. if he dind't, well, she may have part of a point.
Quote: SFBAnd it could have ben Larry David. SFB
Thats true...but if so then I have no symathy for her...wait I don't anyway!
There are lawyers.
You're a celebrity with 100 mil a year sleeping with presumably a hot younger chick and you know you might be giving her herpes.
Given the first two sentences as propositions that are true, what's his excuse? Didn't he have a personal responsibility to know this? Or did he?
To those playing devil's advocate...let's stretch it to the max. Say the guy knows he has herpes and even has an outbreak going on right now, but he doesn't give a whoop. He beds this lady knowing full well there's a pretty good chance he's gonna mess up her undercarriage. While this is morally inexcusable, what law has been broken? What legal leg does she have to stand on?
What if it wasn't a disease? What if he happened to eat something or be on a medication that caused her a severe allergic reaction that resulted in medical bills and/or permanent damage? Would he be held liable for this as well?
I'm just trying to understand this concept of wealth given for irresponsible stupidity. If you have any legal answers, I'd like to hear them.
Quote: FaceWhat if it wasn't a disease? What if he happened to eat something or be on a medication that caused her a severe allergic reaction that resulted in medical bills and/or permanent damage?
You mean he passed it to her through his semen?
I doubt the law lowers the standards for disclosure just because its a one night stand.
Alot depends on what risks he knew of and what he disclosed, but the primary question is assumption of the risk and what her prior state was regarding herpes.
Usually a woman who has a one night stand with some celebrity has had one night stands with other celebrities and usually also with other non-celebrities.
Perhaps the woman would have preferred to get knocked up that night rather than given an STD, but what are her damages?
Should she get rich just because she played Russian Roulette with someone who is wealthy?
Quote: JimbodaBimboI wouldn't think any laws were broken. It's all a matter of morality, brains, and selfishness..or lack thereof. We've got this guy on that other thread who knows he's bedding down married women and doesn't care one bit about the consequences she might face. Here we have another instance of basically the same thing.
Wow you won't give it up. It's not my job to police a chick's morality. If she's married and wants to hook up with me, as long as I'm not friends with the husband, I have no obligation to stop her. She's gonna cheat, I'm not a monk. End of story.
It must really drive you crazy when you see ads for AshleyMadison.com
Quote: JimMorrisonWow you won't give it up. It's not my job to police a chick's morality. If she's married and wants to hook up with me, as long as I'm not friends with the husband, I have no obligation to stop her. She's gonna cheat, I'm not a monk. End of story.
It must really drive you crazy when you see ads for AshleyMadison.com
I purposely left your name out so you'd leave it alone, but all you're doing by tossing out all thos pathetic excuses is displaying how much discussing it is bothering you.
Quote: JimbodaBimboI purposely left your name out so you'd leave it alone, but all you're doing by tossing out all thos pathetic excuses is displaying how much discussing it is bothering you.
Discuss it all you want. Let's start a thread to discuss it so we don't derail other threads. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/5348-jim-morrisons-moral-compass/
I mean I'm in my 20's and not nearly this crazy, but I think there should be an assumption that if you hookup with someone they're clean. At the very least, they should be required to notify you that they possess an incurable STD. I just repeated the same thing like three times, but I haven't slept yet so I'm going to do that.
This is from the Montreal Gazette.
LINK HERE
Quote: gogI hope face never comes across a book called the Stella Awards...
C'mon, gog. You can't pique my curiousity and leave me hanging like that lol. Now you have to tell me. Please? =)
Quote: ahiromuI can't believe it's not a crime to not warn a partner that you are infected with any kind of VD. I'm living under the assumption that the man knew for a fact that he was infected beforehand, in which case what if it was HIV? This is potentially life threatening, should the person who got infected have no legal recourse?
There was a case around here similar to the other ones provided. A guy who knowingly had HIV went around infecting clueless women, somewhere between 10-20 of them. I don't recall whether it was proven he did this with intentions to infect, or if he simply didn't care, but he was also tried and convicted and served 7ish years. He just got out about 3 months ago.
Perhaps I overreacted. I'm still not sure. If someone knowingly has HIV and doesn't advise his partner or intentionally withholds the info to purposely infect them, then that's like layaway murder. I wouldn't think something like this should be able to be gotten away with and do think punishment should result, which kind of flies in the face of my original opinion. I thought maybe intent should play a role, but then again, I'm not sure and wouldn't know how to prove it. I also don't know the details of this Vegas chick's lawsuit. I just seen the title and immediately assumed some girl got duped, got a rash and now expects a few million dollars. If she was duped and is simply looking for him to pay cost of the medical expenses, then I'd feel like maybe she has a point. If she was just dumb and now wants a ticket to easy street, she should only be awarded a punch in the head.
Quote: Toes14How the hell is Russell Brand worth $100 Million? What has he ever done besides marry Katie Perry and be a supporting actor in one or two movies?
Was an MTV host, Had his own Radio show on BBC Radio 2, a string of sold out stand-up comedy gigs, hosted Big Brothers Little Brother (a companion swhow to the reality snoozefest Big Brother) and was voted The Sun newspaper's "Shagger of the Year" so many times they renamed the award after him.
He is alos famous for getting into trouble forr various reasons. Somehow that makes you rich it seems.
Quote:Sources connected with the mystery celebrity herpes lawsuit tell TMZ ... the lawyer for the person who allegedly contracted herpes during a Las Vegas romp has been negotiating a financial settlement with the celeb. And, by the way, the incident DID NOT OCCUR ON APRIL 1.
Our sources say before the lawsuit was filed, attorney Keith Davidson contacted the celebrity's rep and began negotiating a settlement, but the amount was "way too low" for the plaintiff. We're told Davidson then decided to file the lawsuit "as a warning shot across the bow."
After the suit was filed, our sources say negotiations have continued and the celeb has upped the settlement ante, although the parties are still far apart.
TMZ broke the story ... Davidson filed the suit on behalf of an unnamed plaintiff, claiming the celeb -- also unnamed -- assured the plaintiff before having sex that he was herpes-free. The suit claims the celeb gave the plaintiff herpes.
Now get this ... TMZ has learned the alleged sexual encounter occurred LONG BEFORE APRIL 1, 2011. The suit claims the incident occurred "on or before April 1." We're told the actual incident occurred many months before April 1, but attorney Davidson intentionally put April 1 so reporters would not begin speculating who was in Vegas and who might be the culprit.
Quote: WatchMeWinand the difference between what this whore is doing and extortion is what? she probably had herpes before she even f$% the celeb. she probably initiated the hooking up just to set him up for the law suit... pay me off and ill walk away. its happening every day in hollywood.
Yeah no kidding, chances are if she hooks up with some celebrity she just met she already had it. Is this thread actually some sneaky kind of ad for Valtrex?
On another note, I need to look up the kid that gave me chicken pox when I was a kid and sue him. That sh*t messed me up bad!