Removing condom during sex - is it sexual assault/rape?

[Valmy]

What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.

This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.

He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.

If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.

[crazy canuck]

What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.

This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.

He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.

If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.

If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented to have his sperm sprayed all over her back when she specifically told him to keep the thing on.

Is there some basis to imply consent for him to remove it for some other purpose?

[jimmy olsen]

Definitely a crime.

[Jacob]

I've given this way more thought than I'd like to, but I distinguish between 1) having intercourse without a condom in spite of explicit instructions to keep it on, and 2) having intercourse with a condom, but removing it once the two are no longer having intercourse, to ejaculate on the partner's skin.

I think 1) is significantly worse than 2), since in the second scenario there's no real chance of STDs or pregnancy. My understanding is that the case at hand conforms to the first scenario, not the second... but I could be mistaken.

[garbon]

I've given this way more thought than I'd like to, but I distinguish between 1) having intercourse without a condom in spite of explicit instructions to keep it on, and 2) having intercourse with a condom, but removing it once the two are no longer having intercourse, to ejaculate on the partner's skin.

I think 1) is significantly worse than 2), since in the second scenario there's no real chance of STDs or pregnancy. My understanding is that the case at hand conforms to the first scenario, not the second... but I could be mistaken.

Same thoughts here. I also find it hard to tell what happened though as article only says that he asked to take it off at a point he was losing his erection inside her and she said no. Then it appears to skip to at one point he asked her to turn over and then ejaculated on her. Unclear to me if had removed the condom or not while still engaged in intercourse but seems like she thinks he did.

[Josquius]

My understanding is that pretty much the only way to get convicted in cases where consent is in question is to tell on yourself.

That doesn't seem to apply in the particular case at the start of this thread?

I wanted to argue with Tyr, but then I remembered the last sex assault case I got a conviction on was one that heavily relied on statements made by the Accused.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca27/2021abca27.html

Which the eagle-eyed amongst you will realize was overturned in the Court of Appeal with a new trial ordered.  Complainant then refused to testify what would have been a third time and the charges were stayed.

Argue how?

It does seem a genuine issue. They do come off accidentally and if this becomes a commonly prosecuted crime I can imagine a bunch of cases arising from that as well as genuine dick heads.

[Berkut]

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.

If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...

Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.

[crazy canuck]

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.

If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...

Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.

Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault? 

I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.

[Berkut]

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.

If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...

Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.

Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault? 

I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.

...and followed up with another strawman, AND a straight out implication that I am an actual rapist and don't think consent is necessary for sex.

Always a delight to discuss things with you.

Let me spell this out carefully - of course, we all know you know exactly what Valmy said.

1. Something can lack consent WITHOUT it being sexual assault/rape.

2. That does not make it ok.

Valmy was EXTREMELY specific. He never said anything about consent. You can tell by reading his post and noting that he never said the word "consent" or any synonym of consent. He simply stated that the act described, in his opinion, does not constitute sexual assault.

Now, if you want to argue that if there is no consent, then that any sexual act IS sexual assault, make THAT argument. But don't just assume that to be true, and then fucking jump from "you think it isn't assault even though there isn't consent, hence you must be a-ok with sexual assault!"

Some sexual acts that are done without consent are assault. That doesn't mean all are, and one can disagree about some particular act without then thinking that all acts without consent are not assault.

This is so fucking obvious, I cannot believe you can sit there imply fellow posters of being rapists in good or honest faith.

Just to close the loop - there are plenty of sexual acts that happen without consent. Some of them are assault, but by no means all of them. For your argument to be reasonable, you would have to argue that any sexual act taken without consent is in fact sexual assault.

"You just caressed my breast while we were naked in bed and I didn't say it was ok! Assault!"

I actually had something like that happen once. I was in bed with a date, and she had told me that she had super sensitive nipples and did not like them to be touched. In the heat of things, I forgot, and kissed one. She kind of gasped and grabbed my head and said "Ahhh, don't do that!"

I apologized because I had forgotten.

I guess I should be in jail for assault now, probably because I watch so much porn.

[merithyn]

What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.

This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.

He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.

If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.

It sounded like BB was arguing against your second statement.

Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom. I sure wouldn't be checking if we'd already agreed that a condom would be used, and I don't make a habit of looking at it just in general. It has its uses, but pretty it ain't.

[merithyn]

I've given this way more thought than I'd like to, but I distinguish between 1) having intercourse without a condom in spite of explicit instructions to keep it on, and 2) having intercourse with a condom, but removing it once the two are no longer having intercourse, to ejaculate on the partner's skin.

I think 1) is significantly worse than 2), since in the second scenario there's no real chance of STDs or pregnancy. My understanding is that the case at hand conforms to the first scenario, not the second... but I could be mistaken.

Same thoughts here. I also find it hard to tell what happened though as article only says that he asked to take it off at a point he was losing his erection inside her and she said no. Then it appears to skip to at one point he asked her to turn over and then ejaculated on her. Unclear to me if had removed the condom or not while still engaged in intercourse but seems like she thinks he did.

[crazy canuck]

If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.

If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...

Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.

Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault? 

I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.

...and followed up with another strawman, AND a straight out implication that I am an actual rapist and don't think consent is necessary for sex.

Always a delight to discuss things with you.

Let me spell this out carefully - of course, we all know you know exactly what Valmy said.

1. Something can lack consent WITHOUT it being sexual assault/rape.

2. That does not make it ok.

Valmy was EXTREMELY specific. He never said anything about consent. You can tell by reading his post and noting that he never said the word "consent" or any synonym of consent. He simply stated that the act described, in his opinion, does not constitute sexual assault.

Now, if you want to argue that if there is no consent, then that any sexual act IS sexual assault, make THAT argument. But don't just assume that to be true, and then fucking jump from "you think it isn't assault even though there isn't consent, hence you must be a-ok with sexual assault!"

Some sexual acts that are done without consent are assault. That doesn't mean all are, and one can disagree about some particular act without then thinking that all acts without consent are not assault.

This is so fucking obvious, I cannot believe you can sit there imply fellow posters of being rapists in good or honest faith.

Just to close the loop - there are plenty of sexual acts that happen without consent. Some of them are assault, but by no means all of them. For your argument to be reasonable, you would have to argue that any sexual act taken without consent is in fact sexual assault.

"You just caressed my breast while we were naked in bed and I didn't say it was ok! Assault!"

I actually had something like that happen once. I was in bed with a date, and she had told me that she had super sensitive nipples and did not like them to be touched. In the heat of things, I forgot, and kissed one. She kind of gasped and grabbed my head and said "Ahhh, don't do that!"

I apologized because I had forgotten.

I guess I should be in jail for assault now, probably because I watch so much porn.

To clarify, you accused me of engaging in a strawman, the only way you could possibly conclude that is if you did not understand the whole issue is whether or not consent was given.  I did not spell that out for Valmy because I think he understood that point.  But I did not anticipate someone who did not have that level of understanding as also reading the post.

The comment about porn is a separate thought caused by the idea you expressed that taking off a condom to cum over your partner is something which should be included within the original consent - but then again you might not actually understand the issue of consent, so my mistake.

[Jacob]

Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom.

Yeah that's a fair point.

[grumbler]

Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom.

Yeah that's a fair point.

And that might make this one of those cases where first degree sexual assault cannot be successfully prosecuted, given the prosecution's need to demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt.

[The Brain]

Sometimes you can encounter a tendency to try to make anything unpleasant that happens during sex a crime. I was with a woman who suddenly started biting me during sex. We hadn't even discussed biting so obviously I hadn't given consent. A law that makes her action assault is an unsound law IMHO.