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.

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?

Did I arrive at that conclusion I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.

Also you have to remember the absolutely barbaric nature of our criminal justice system, somebody would have to fuck me up pretty fucking bad before I would want anybody to endure that horror show. Spewing on somebody is pretty gross and awful thing to do but sending them to suffer under brutal conditions for months and then be a pariah for the rest of their lives seems like disproportionate punishment. But it's Canada so maybe getting a sentence like that is not what it would be here.

Obviously if he did put her in danger of getting pregnant or get a STD that is different.

[The Brain]

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?

Did I arrive at that conclusion I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.

CC is a lawyer. I think he can understand written arguments correctly.

[Josquius]

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.

I mean... Biting someone is assault.
Seems to me things are kind of the opposite of what I'm getting from your post here. That in sex a lot more is acceptable than would be in the world at large.

[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.

I mean... Biting someone is assault.
Seems to me things are kind of the opposite of what I'm getting from your post here. That in sex a lot more is acceptable than would be in the world at large.

I wouldn't know. I don't engage in passionate embrace with people in the street.

[Tamas]

See, society had no such issues to ponder when sex outside marriage was illegal and the wife was effectively the property of the husband. Simpler times.

[grumbler]

CC is a lawyer. I think he can understand written arguments correctly.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

[garbon]

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.

I mean... Biting someone is assault.

I feel like that just sets up a victim mentality unless you are thinking about biting that involves breaking the skin.

[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?

Is it possible for you to understand that not all sexual acts that lack consent are sexual assault or rape?

Answer: Yes, because various people have posten many examples of non-consensual acts that are not assault or rape.

Further, is it possible to understand that just because someone is putting forth the argument that something might not be criminal, that doesn't mean they think it is ok.

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

I wonder how someone could take a discussion in the abstract among nominal friends about what is and is not a crime when it comes to sexual behavior, and weaponize that into an implied accusation that someone who does not agree with you is a sexual predator, or at hte very least a serious fucking asshole.

Nothing that has been said justifies anything like that kind of remark.

[DGuller]

I think CC needs a timeout, in all honesty.  If we can't discuss issues here without being safe from insinuations of being a rapist, we should just shut this forum down.

[merithyn]

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.

Unless he tells on himself, you're correct.

[Admiral Yi]

I've gone back and forth about six times about whether to ask if women can feel a condom or not.   

[DGuller]

I've gone back and forth about six times about whether to ask if women can feel a condom or not.   

What did you ultimately decide to do?

[Admiral Yi]

What did you ultimately decide to do?

Still undecided.

[merithyn]

I've gone back and forth about six times about whether to ask if women can feel a condom or not.   

I cannot. Other women may.

[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?

Did I arrive at that conclusion I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.

Also you have to remember the absolutely barbaric nature of our criminal justice system, somebody would have to fuck me up pretty fucking bad before I would want anybody to endure that horror show. Spewing on somebody is pretty gross and awful thing to do but sending them to suffer under brutal conditions for months and then be a pariah for the rest of their lives seems like disproportionate punishment. But it's Canada so maybe getting a sentence like that is not what it would be here.

Obviously if he did put her in danger of getting pregnant or get a STD that is different.

So lets go back to what you wrote.  "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."

You said it would be something, but not sexual assault.  For it to not be sexual assault there would have to be consent.  So I asked you how you were concluding there had been consent to ejaculating on her body - assuming he did not actually engage in intercourse with the condom off which we all agree would be sexual assault.

There could be an interesting discussion about whether there was consent and that is why I asked you the question.   

It is also clear that a number in the peanut gallery fail to understanding the necessary link between consent and this not being a sexual assault.  And the ones who cry most about Ad Hom attacks are the first to pull them out.  Such is Languish.