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

As I said in my initial post, this law has gone beyond and into the absurd. Leave it to California to actually propose this law and have it passed.

I wonder if the California will decide that there is minimum time allocated for sex, with whom, and how much time in each position.

As to trying something that isn't 'vanilla' regardless of gender, I actually agree, permission should be asked. What happens if the woman decides to try a little something that wasn't 'vanilla'? Shouldn't she also ask permission?

pardon my laughter, but I'm visualizing a check list to be completed prior to sex, of what a person likes or doesn't, what they are willing to try, and have it signed and notarized. If that doesn't take the fun out of things, nothing will. One may be better of taking care of things themselves.

 

Maybe this should be applied to all plastic surgery, and to hair plugs, breast implants, eyelash extensions, etc too.

Anyone here remember the Japanese man who tried to sue his wife because she didn't tell him she had had cosmetic surgery and their kids were ugly?

 

Not seeing a difference here. In both cases of lying about the pill and stealthily removing the condom, you have led somebody to believe a false claim of protection against pregnancy.

I would also add people intentionally poking holes in the condom, which has been known to happen. Is there a law against that ?

 

be impossible to prove, but does suck for a man to do that

 

and women lying about being on birth control

what was that famous actor that the women said she was on the pill, and it turned out to be Fertility pill and he killed her

think was Robert Blake

edit

"Bakley daughter says mom tricked Blake"

https://archive.triblive.com/news/bakley-daughter-says-mom-tricked-blake/

"The slain wife of actor Robert Blake tricked him by taking fertility drugs instead of birth control pills, her daughter testified in California."

 

How about women lying a guy into parental responsibility and paying child support when he and she never even had sex? Shouldn't that also be addressed?

 

agree, but that was tried once and the courts ruled it was still his child, so still responsible, even though she used a used condom to get herself pregnant..... rapist often get visits with the child too

 

Moral of the story is a man needs to keep each of his sperms properly labeled and accounted for at all times. Preferably in a sploooge safe made of steel.

The sperm after all was the aggressor here. He swam of his own accord and violently punctured the innocent egg, who was minding her own business.

And I promise you that there exist some feminists who would say the above without any hint of jest.

 

While I agree that intentionally removing protection without the partners consent (provided that consent was predicated on the use of said protection) violates that consent, I would imagine most people here are aware that its possible for a condom to slip off without either party knowing. I don't have a lot of confidence that CA is going to be objective about this fact.

 

How does a condom slip off without the man knowing? If that's a thing, I have been using the wrong brand.

 

Should be, although that is more often the woman's gambit where men are more likely the ones to engage in stealthing. And again there is no protection against pregnancy, unless certain organs are removed. There is only risk reduction, and in the end, the condom is more than just pregnancy risk reduction. It is also STD risk reduction. So while being false about the pill does indeed change the risk level for pregnancy, removal of the condom increases risk for multiple concerns.

 

A concern yes, but a separate issue and in need of a different law.

 

I believe that he was referring to not his child at all, but she lied saying it was his. In some states, once he's on the birth certificate he is responsible. Even more so if the state is one of those who automatically put the husband on the birth certificate even if his wife says he is not the father.

 

It is, as is breaking. For slipping off, it is usually a matter of not properly putting it on in the first place. I know that it shouldn't be that hard, but it happens. Usually when putting it on in the heat of the moment and not paying attention.

 

The answer to this is body cams blued toothed into a "Sexual Permissions App".

Welcome to the 21st Century, folks!

 

I think she meant using his condom to get herself pregnant, IE, your dating a women and her room mate sneaks into her room and steals your condom and gets herself pregnant

but I agree, both are wrong

 

I don't totally buy that line of argument. The man could have already gone through an extensive battery of STD tests and been sexually monogamous with his girlfriend in a long-term relationship. In that case your argument here would not apply so much.

Plus he might risk getting something from her just as much as she risks getting something from him, so the question can be asked whether a law is really needed to try to serve as a deterrent here.

 

I will question when a woman is going to be prosecuted when her diaphagm slips out of place.
I greatly doubt that is ever going to happen and this law seems selectively geared towards use against men.

Maybe if a man suspects the woman might taddletale on him, he could race to the police to report the crime first.

 

I don't see much room for controversy. If she didn't agree to sex without a condom, and be tried to trick her into it by removing the condom intentionally while copulating.... That surely sounds like a violation of her to me. Yes, it should be a crime, but so should these other acts of deception causing harm.

 

Slips out of place? I think it would have to be an intentional removal. Accidents happen. Same as with the condom. They do break sometimes.

 

Yes but the issue is this will all be based on account of the woman's testimony.

Two people get into a room together and then (unless video cameras are rolling) there will be no physical evidence.

The woman is almost always going to be believed. This type of law practically ensures that.
(because how else would any man get prosecuted?)

 

That is the actual problem yes. What is the standard of proof? Is there any evidence of him admitting stealthing it? Was it caught on video? Was the condom sitting on the dresser where he put it instead of being loose inside her or on the floor? It would indeed be difficult or impossible to prove, yes, but not necessarily impossible.

 

I don't have a problem with this as he is purposefully behaving beyond consent. The issue is how the **** do you prove that beyond doubt?

 

I foresee this being widely abused by women, who are disgruntled at the man for some other reason.

 

Yeah. But then how can she prove it in court?