California makes it a crime to remove a condom without woman's explicit consent

Discussion in 'Women's Rights' started by kazenatsu, Oct 8, 2021.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state of California has just passed a law making it illegal for a man to remove a condom during sexual intercourse without the woman's knowledge and consent.

    The practice of a man removing his condom without the woman knowing has been referred to as "stealthing".

    California is the only state in the US to have such a specific law.

    (12% of the US population lives in the state of California)

    It's not incredibly surprising. California is considered one of the most "progressive" states. This same type of law also exists in Sweden, and played a major part of the story in the Julian Assange case, if anyone is familiar with that.

    What this means is that a man will risk being charged with "sexual battery" if the woman he is sleeping with claims that he removed his condom without her knowing. To be on the safe side, the man will have to obtain her explicit verbal consent before removing the condom, if he is going to continue sexual intercourse with her.


    The traditional conservative view, on the other hand, is basically that if a woman takes off all her clothes and lies in the same bed as a man, and has not said "no", then it should be assumed she is consenting to whatever sexual acts take place.
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The laws says a person commits sexual battery if they cause "contact between a sexual organ, from which a condom has been removed, and the intimate part of another who did not verbally consent to the condom being removed."

    Imagine how ridiculous this law could be. A man could begin to initiate sex, with the woman seeming to have no care that the man was about to begin intercourse without a condom. Then the man changes his mind and puts a condom on. Then the man takes off the condom, without the woman saying anything.
    Now, all of a sudden, the man could be interpreted as being guilty under this law.

    This type of law could easily lead to absurd outcomes like that.


    And I'd like to know if any women are ever going to get prosecuted under this law.
    I doubt it.
    Theoretically if a woman puts on a female version condom and then takes it off, without the man saying anything, she could be guilty.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with these sort of laws is that men will go to prison for "regret sex". Where women regret that they had sex after the fact, and then decide the man should be blamed and held responsible for it.

    It's unrealistic for a man to always ask a woman if she verbally consents to every specific sex act while he is having sex with her.

    Sometimes it is clear that the woman DOES know, but she can just claim she didn't, or wasn't sure.

    In the Julian Assange case, one of the women actually told the police she realized he wasn't wearing a condom a few seconds after he went into her, but she still allowed the intercourse to continue. It didn't matter, under the wording of the law, the man was still guilty, and they could use that as a basis to get him extradited from another country.
    That wasn't the real reason the woman had complained to police - she was actually angry about the man carrying on a relationship with another woman at the same time - but that was used as a pretext to go after him.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So somebody is charged with a criminal act based on the word of someone else? How would you present evidence for this?

    Seems a lot like a Salem witchcraft trial sort of thing. Who doesn't have to be any evidence or any proof just the accusation.

    It really is a blessing to be gay.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that's how it would work.
    The woman could be caught on video camera seducing a man and taking him home, but if she claims he had a condom on and then took it off, then he's going to go to prison.

    And not only that but any employer who looks up the man's record will see a conviction for "sexual battery", which normally makes people think that person is a rapist or did something perverted like reach his hands into a woman's pants whom he didn't know.

    It could be worse than that. The woman might have given her consent through situational context or body language, but then she could claim that she never gave verbal consent to that specific aspect of the sex. She could have the man sent to prison without even actually having to lie. (You have to look at the exact wording of the law) For example if she became angry at the man for some reason after she slept with him, or maybe if there was something about that sexual experience she did not like, and in her mind she blamed the man for it. This is not that uncommon.

    Some women have claimed rape since a man didn't call them back after a casual one-time encounter. So you can just imagine how open to abuse this law would be.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  6. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Makes me wonder if a guy even has to do this in order to be accused.
     
  7. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given the wording presented (didn't see a link in the first three posts) since it says anyone, the law would allow for a man to make the charge against another man who "stealthed" the condom off. So being gay isn't a saving grace. It might lower the odds of being accused, but it will be still possible. But I agree with you on the evidence thing. We already see this with rape accusations, but only if it is a male rapist and female victim. Any other combinations are typically dismissed even with evidence.
     
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But at least if they are rape accusations, there is possible obvious evidence that could exonerate the victim (mobile phone records, security video camera footage showing the woman was trying to sleep with the man or take him home late at night).
    With these "stealthing" condom crimes, there is almost no evidence that exists that could exonerate the man (short of the whole sex act being video recorded, which is unlikely, and would probably be illegal for the man to do to the woman without her consent anyway, and the judge probably would not allow it to be submitted as evidence even if it showed the woman was lying, ironically).
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2021
  9. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This would be a difficult trying to prosecute. You would have to prove beyond the reasonable Doubt that the person making accusation isn't lying. I don't think you can.
     
  10. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree you you on that point. I am only pointing out that the probability is the same for both heterosexual and homosexual sexual encounters.
     
  11. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given the number of rape accusations we have been having lately that are coming multiple years after the supposed crime, I'm not seeing that much of a difference. Especially when they come from an era when there wasn't much in the way of electronic tracking.
     
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  12. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's hope they're CONSISTENT, and apply this to transgenders who don't disclose their status prior to physical contact. It's exactly the same 'no consent given' situation.
     
    Jolly Penguin and ToddWB like this.
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Generally no.

    We can look at previous instances where men tried to do the me two things they were ignored their perpetrators who are very well known for their perversions seem to be able to mock their victims openly with no repercussions.

    See Kevin Spacey.

    There is absolutely a double standard on this sort of thing.
     
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry, but you're being naive.
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I would be very happy if everyone thought like you. The man shouldn't go to prison based just on the testimony of the woman. But that's not how most people think.
    In reality, this law is going to be seen as giving license to send the man to prison based off the testimony of the woman, and the testimony of the woman alone, with no other evidence.
    Since you seem to be so naive, you may not know this but plenty of men have already been sent to prison after a woman claimed they raped them, with there being no other evidence. So how much more so are they going to put a man in prison for this law.
    Laws like these practically give approval to use only accusations of the woman as sufficient evidence for conviction.
    (Because how else is any man realistically going to get convicted under this law if that's not the case?)
     
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wasn't saying that that's the way it is if I was then yes I would be naive I'm just saying that's the way it should be.

    All you have to do is say someone's a witch and as long as they're a man they are guilty.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2021
  16. joesnagg

    joesnagg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    UH.....what about the lying wench's who say "It's OK honey, I'm on the pill." and are NOT? Known of more than a couple fools who bought that line of BS and became daddies. Lesson here boys is if you're in Kook-a-fornia, get permission for sex in writing, signed by 3 witnesses, have the act itself observed by 3 witnesses AND videoed from all possible angles, THEN place all that in the hands of an attorney of your choice for safekeeping....OR invest several thousand bucks in a state of the art "love doll", probably the wisest choice.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  17. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a comparison for this. Even on the pill, there is a risk of pregnancy, just as there is a risk of breakage, full or partial, when wearing a condom. Both are risk reducers. Stealthing is an act the removes the reduction when it has been confirmed in place. You can't really confirm nor secretly withdraw BC medications or implants.
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NBA basketball players have to do all that. There's been countless women sleeping with them who thought accusing them of sexual assault would be the easy ride on the gravy train to lots of money. Many times the athletes have just paid large amounts of settlement money to make the accusations go away.

    The problem got to be so bad that now the team managers sit all the players through a special presentation about all the legal precautions they have to take if they're going to go around dating or sleeping with all the throngs of women who are throwing themselves at them. Women who want to sleep with an NBA player are made to sign a consent form in the presence of a lawyer, to verify that the sex is consensual and try to reduce the chance of there being allegations later.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
  19. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, apparently by this thread, women are the only ones to accuse someone of raping, stealthing, or other assorted sexual antics? And it's all about moneymoneymoney?

    You are forgetting about those males who have power trips over the idea that a woman can't say no, and if they want to bareback it, that's their right.

    Personally, while I feel this law goes a little beyond and invades a consensual relationship where the whole purpose (should) is mutual enjoyment, let's remember where this is happening.
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, basically. Women are usually the only ones who are believed. If a man accuses the woman of this sort of thing, the man will usually just be laughed at.

    Not always. Sometimes the woman wants to hurt the man, for various reasons.

    Very often it's because the man slept with her, but the woman was under the impression the man wanted to start a long-term relationship with her, which did not turn out to be the case. Maybe the man did not call her back after sleeping with her. Or wanted to break up with her. Or, in the case of Julian Assange, the two women were angry when they found out he had been sleeping around with both of them at the same time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  21. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good to see that they're focusing on the important issues of the day. :roll:
    inundation by waves of illegals, unreachable house prices, illegal drug epidemic, etc. are minor issues.
     
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the woman wants to say "no" before the man goes into her, she can do that. And it does become sexual assault if the man has sex with her when she is giving very clear signals that she does not want that, especially if she is physically resisting and trying to push him away.

    However, a man who has committed sexual assault against a woman who has voluntarily taken off her clothes and gotten into the same bed as him probably will not be (and should not be) punished anywhere near as severely as an ordinary rape where the woman did not voluntarily put herself in that situation. I hope we can agree about that.

    That would be the typical traditional conservative view, anyway.

    I suppose that, in the conservative view, it should be the woman's responsibility to see that the condom is on before the man goes into her. And she should actively withdraw her consent for the man to go into her if she does not see that the condom is on.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
  23. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A woman changing her mind in mid stream, if provable, is inappropriate, but the male should still stop at that point.

    Typical Conservative view? I'm not acquainted with that. What would be the typical Liberal view of that, for comparison purposes?

    Yes, it is the woman's responsibility, as well as the man's responsibility. Unfortunately, in the days of anonymous hook ups, you really don't know the person or their integrity on either side of it.

    You are missing the point of stealthing. That's when a man intentionally removes the condom, sometimes after initial penetration. Changing positions is a likely time.
     
  24. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. I didn't realize people were so shallow these days. Actually, I did know, but just not sure how deteriorated relationships had gotten.
     
  25. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "Liberal" (feminist) view would be that the man should have to obtain clear affirmative action before he does anything to her, with each and every separate element of the sex act.
    The simple act of the woman taking off all her clothes and getting into the same bed with the man would not be seen as giving the man implicit consent to do things with her.
    She could still say "I didn't consent to this, I didn't consent to that, you didn't actually specifically ask me" and still have the man arrested. The woman doesn't even have to claim she said "no"; under the wording of the law the man can still be arrested, because he didn't obtain her specific permission in clear words.

    Often this happens when the man tries something that wasn't "vanilla" or might have been a little bit different from what the woman was expecting. If the woman doesn't explicitly say "yes" in words, she can later have the man arrested by claiming she didn't give him her consent. Often this has to do with "regret sex", where the woman regrets it afterwards.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
    Jarlaxle likes this.

Share This Page