California makes it a crime to remove a condom without woman's explicit consent - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15193806
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.
#15193811
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.
#15193813
Puffer Fish wrote: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.


If the only problem is that these ridiculously far fetched scenarios might take place, then I fail to see the problem.
#15193910
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the only problem is that these ridiculously far fetched scenarios might take place, then I fail to see the problem.

Many of those on the Progressive Left fail to see a problem with their laws.

(Maybe that's because it involves more than a little bit of thinking? Can't let logic get in the way of emotional impetus, can we)
#15193917
Puffer Fish wrote: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.


Name one more absurd outcome. :lol:
#15193948
Puffer Fish wrote:

Many of those on the Progressive Left fail to see a problem with their laws.

(Maybe that's because it involves more than a little bit of thinking? Can't let logic get in the way of emotional impetus, can we)


Instead of insulting leftists, you could explain what the problem is.
#15193965
Robert Urbanek wrote:Well, clearly liberals are far from being libertarian. Their position seems to be: The government should do nothing to stop killing life in the womb, but it must do something to prevent life from starting in the womb. So much for keeping government out of the bedroom.


Actually, the idea that a woman has a right to decide how someone will enter her sexually is perfectly consistent with libertarian thought.
#15194083
Puffer Fish wrote: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.

This is ridiculous. So you think if you are in the bed with a woman, since you are both naked she is then free to insert her fingers in your a hole, put a strap on and ride you?
While I don't think you this should not be taken to the extreme, after all, do we really need signed, informed consent, notarized documents w/ digital copies every time you are going to have a sexual encounter, the idea that you are blanketing agreeing to "whatever sexual acts take place" is just ridiculous. If two consenting adults have an implicit agreement to conduct sexual acts w/ a condom, clearly removing it without the other partner knowing is wrong.
The big issue here is the enforceability of such law. I am struggling to see how, short of having video evidence, this could be properly enforced. How do you prove the condom was removed beyond he said, she said, how do you prove that the agreement was to use a condom?
#15194094
Rugoz wrote:Apparently dimwitted conservatives think removing the condom without asking is fine. :roll:

The only potential problem here is enforceability.


Removing a condom without consent is not ok, but who can judge if it inadvertently happened or deliberately.


I think there should as few as possible laws be... laws who can not be enforced should not be laws.
#15194097
Robert Urbanek wrote:Well, clearly liberals are far from being libertarian. Their position seems to be: The government should do nothing to stop killing life in the womb, but it must do something to prevent life from starting in the womb. So much for keeping government out of the bedroom.

I've heard Conservatives say that a human life begins at conception, I've got to be honest that does strike me as cretinous.
Why does America Suck at Everything?

The USA hires undocumented workers because it can[…]

Racist negro baby killing liberals are pissed off […]

Please see my previous post in this thread about […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

But their is no rationale on the russian side. &q[…]