Civil trial level of proof is preponderance of evidence, which basically means the judge/jury believes the defendant is at least 50% guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is more like 75-80% guilty.

I don't think that it sets up unreasonable expectations. If you get tested regularly like you should, the next step of making sure you don't infect anyone else should be VERY easy for anyone who has ANY moral fiber.

Can we just make $900 000 the standard fine on men who "whoopsie no condom even though you told me four times and didn't consent to sex without one, and I even went as far as to watch you put it on, and you horrible fuck snuck it off when I wasn't looking..."

"...she asked him to wear a condom and he agreed, but then suddenly he wasn't wearing a condom and 'it was too late.'"

Well, he'd deserve an assault conviction for not using a condom when she asked him to, regardless of the herpes. I believe that counts as rape.

Maybe because the jury thought there was some kind of onus on her to be absolutely certain that he was STD-free before having sex with him, and that by consenting to sexual activity with someone you are by default partially responsible for whatever the outcome may be. :/

How the fuck is it even 25% her fault? What in the flying fuck?