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

[garbon]

My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.

Yeah I agree.

Alternately, understand that if they're relying on implied consent that they me incorrect and if they are, then the other person has recourse to a variety of actions in response.

That said, I do think there's a scale of severity of impact, a scale of egregiousness of particular acts, and room for considering misunderstandings. But the bottom line is that engaging in a sexual act to which the other party does not consent is sexual assault.

In reality, of course, people engage in all kinds of sexual activity without explicitly discussing consent based on prior experiences, implied consent, and other factors... which is fine. As long as the other party is okay with what's happening, you're fine... but you're running a bit of a risk and have to trust your partner if you do so.

Agreed with all of this. It's best to never assume something is okay in a sexual context no matter how innocent it seems to you.

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

[alfred russel]

I liked this forum better when all threads ended up in the Civil War, not a civil war.

This does bring up an interesting question. Did the 20th Maine technically rape the 15th Alabama when they charged them off of little round top? While they didn't get formal consent, the 15th Alabama ran "like a herd of wild cattle" (their commander Oates' own words), and in the absence of resistence, does that constitute a form of consent?

[Jacob]

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.

So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).

[garbon]

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.

So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).

What a world.

[PDH]

I liked this forum better when all threads ended up in the Civil War, not a civil war.

This does bring up an interesting question. Did the 20th Maine technically rape the 15th Alabama when they charged them off of little round top? While they didn't get formal consent, the 15th Alabama ran "like a herd of wild cattle" (their commander Oates' own words), and in the absence of resistence, does that constitute a form of consent?

Dorsey, you might be a douche, but I am a man of honor.  Thank you for this.

[jimmy olsen]

Speaking of consent, what do you guys think of Britney Spear's testimony that she has been forced to have an IUD by her conservators?

[The Brain]

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.

So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).

Laws like you describe seem unsound to me.

[Solmyr]

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.

So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).

What a world.

Yeah, imagine actually having to make sure the other person wants you to do something to them before you do it.

[garbon]

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.

So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).

What a world.

Yeah, imagine actually having to make sure the other person wants you to do something to them before you do it.

It just sounds so bizarre to have two people to decide to have sex and then be at such confusion about what they other would or would not permit.

From my experience (given Jacob decided to condescened to me by making his example about grindr), there was alwas a base of stuff that was implied as acceptable and then if it was getting to say penile insertion there would be comments like 'do you want me to fuck you?' or 'will you suck it'? At the same time if one partner went to suck the other's dick and the other wasn't feeling it (for whatever reason), they would pull back up on the suckee or say something like 'Oh I'm not feeling like having my dick sucked.' People had (and I'd guess still have) the ability to speak and if something started to happen that they didn't want, they could say that / things like say fisting or watersports are not part of the basic package.

Only consent around kissing, I can recall, is someone saying 'I don't like to kiss/want to kiss' and that would always point out to me that it was time to leave/cut that activity short.

I also wonder what this does to a sense of exploration, as in, you don't come to your first sexual encounters knowing exactly what you like nor do you want to be particpating in a Q&A session.

[Berkut]

So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?

You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.

So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).

What a world.

Yeah, imagine actually having to make sure the other person wants you to do something to them before you do it.

It just sounds so bizarre to have two people to decide to have sex and then be at such confusion about what they other would or would not permit.

From my experience (given Jacob decided to condescened to me by making his example about grindr), there was alwas a base of stuff that was implied as acceptable and then if it was getting to say penile insertion there would be comments like 'do you want me to fuck you?' or 'will you suck it'? At the same time if one partner went to suck the other's dick and the other wasn't feeling it (for whatever reason), they would pull back up on the suckee or say something like 'Oh I'm not feeling like having my dick sucked.' People had (and I'd guess still have) the ability to speak and if something started to happen that they didn't want, they could say that / things like say fisting or watersports are not part of the basic package.

Only consent around kissing, I can recall, is someone saying 'I don't like to kiss/want to kiss' and that would always point out to me that it was time to leave/cut that activity short.

I also wonder what this does to a sense of exploration, as in, you don't come to your first sexual encounters knowing exactly what you like nor do you want to be particpating in a Q&A session.

As someone actively dating, and actually negotiating this entire making out/sex interaction on a somewhat regular basis, I find this entire description of how sex works in the minds of everyone at such odds with how it actually transpires.

None of this is that difficult in reality. People are quite capable of communicating clearly most of the time, about what they want and like and dont want and dont like and how to respect each other pretty simply. And in those cases that "most of the time" doesn't cover, the mistakes between two people are easily negotiated without any need to start worrying about crimes having been committed.

Its kind of weird to talk about it, because you are talking about an intimate moment, but the idea that it's somehow super tough to figure this out is kind of beyond me.

And the idea that the outcome of a mis-communication is potentially going to be criminal is simply fucking beyond understanding.

Crimes are things people do with malice and intent to harm. Not shitty communication in bed.

The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.

[garbon]

I do recall being told before on Languish that I was secually assaulted which I found odd and that was something for more egregious then not asking consent to kiss someone or touch their genitals.

All of this only makes sense if you go into sex with patanoia/see it as an adversarial scenario. In which case I'd suggest perhaps that isn't someone you should have sex with.

[Berkut]

Going back to the original case.

Lets assume these are the actual facts of what actually happened.

A and B mutually decided to have sex.
A tells B that a condom is a pre-condition to the act of intercourse. They engage in other sexual activity (kissing, fondling, even oral sex between them) without the condom.
B and A are ready for intercourse, and B complains that he does not like condoms - do we really need to use one?
A says "Yes, non-negotiable, stop bitching and put the thing on and screw me already!"
B puts on condom, they have intercourse.
B is about to orgasm, and pulls out of A, removes condom, and ejaculates on A. Or maybe B even realizes he will not orgasm with it on, so pulls out, takes the condom off, and finishes on A.

Let's assume that A knows that the condom was removed after penetration, so there is no question of whether or not B was inside A without a condom. Take that question off the table.

At this point, the potential "crime" is that B ejacualted on A. Now, A never said "Don't cum on me, I think that's gross!". But A certainly could have thought that was implied in the overall "Use the condom for intercourse!" instruction. B could have thought "Well, I did as asked, and used the condom for intercourse, but we did lots of other stuff without it, so what's the problem?"

B might be guilty of not being very considerate, and A could genuinely have found this to be really, really fucking objectionable because they happen to really really not like having cum on them.

But I don't think any crime was committed. Nothing here rises to the level of "Lets send B to jail for 6 months!", and this is NOT an example of how hard it is to prosecute sexual assault.

Variations on this encounter happen all the time, in various ways, between two people having sex for the first or fifth time with each other.

What say everyone - was B ejaculating on A without *explicit* permission a crime?

[Berkut]

I do recall being told before on Languish that I was secually assaulted which I found odd and that was something for more egregious then not asking consent to kiss someone or touch their genitals.

All of this only makes sense if you go into sex with patanoia/see it as an adversarial scenario. In which case I'd suggest perhaps that isn't someone you should have sex with.

Yeah, that is definitely a consideration BEFORE hopping into bed with someone.

[DGuller]

The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.

I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different).  Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic.  You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist.  When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.

[Berkut]

The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.

I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different).  Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic.  You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist.  When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.

I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.