Without a condom

[WC3000]

Retrait du condom sans consentement: des accusations d'agression sexuelle peuvent être déposées

Une personne tenue par son partenaire de porter un condom, mais qu’elle ne le fait pas, peut être coupable d’agression sexuelle.

www.tvanouvelles.ca

A man who refuses to wear a condom during sex despite a request to do so by his or her partner should be guilty of sexual assault, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision handed down Friday.

The Supreme Court of Canada rules that when a person is required by their partner to wear a condom during sex but does not do so, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

What do you think?

Sounds about right to me.

 

[WC3000]

This has got to be the most ridiculous reply in a very long time.
Have you heard of planes, look at Covid it didn’t originate in Quebec did it.
Monkey pox didn’t originate in Quebec either.

Definitely agree. With the ease (well, relative ease these days anyways lol) and prevalence of air travel, diseases spread internationally so easily these days.

The sad fact is that the diseases that don't spread easily are the ones that kill their hosts quickly and, often times, horrifically.

 

[sene5hos]

Have you heard of planes, look at Covid it didn’t originate in Quebec did it.
Monkey pox didn’t originate in Quebec either.

I wasn't talking about covid or monkeypox.

I was talking about fucking without a condom.

 

[armoney]

First you have to wear a mask then a condom. You guys are so much safer up there.

 

[Like_It_Hot]

Anyway the message is simple from the Supreme Court decision.
Any sexual act without consent could be considered an aggression.
NO is NO. For sure, in court, a proof have to be presented. It is always a question of reasonable doubt.
I'm OK with this decision.
If you want to go without condom and your partner doesn't, all you can do is find an other partner. You can't force any one.

 

[Fradi]

I have no problem with this decision either.
It just makes sense to use a condom with everyone if that is what they wish, I wouldn’t chance it with anyone other than a wife or longtime girlfriend anyway.

 

[Halloween Mike]

I don't really get the fuss about this thing. If you are with a woman, and about to have sex, and she require you to wear a condom, and you say no, and then she decide she don't wan to proceed because o it and you force yourself on her, its already a rape anyway... So why this nuance? Is there something i don't get?

 

[Cap'tain Fantastic]

So why this nuance? Is there something i don't get?

Its not so hard to understand, Its more about the assholes that sneakily remove the condom, so the girl still believe he's wearing it until she finds out. That is the offense, it breaks the consent agreement established prior to the action. So, yeah, it is a sexual agression, I totally agree with the decision.

 

[sene5hos]

Its not so hard to understand, Its more about the assholes that sneakily remove the condom, so the girl still believe he's wearing it until she finds out. That is the offense, it breaks the consent agreement established prior to the action. So, yeah, it is a sexual agression, I totally agree with the decision.

Bravo. Jupiter9 summed it up really well.

 

[Numerati]

Well then if that is the case hope these guys catch something where it causes it to fall off. Then never have to hear and deal with again. End of story!

Nothing more powerful than rules of nature and Karma rolled into one. No laws and rules by mere mortals can ever match.

 

[Anna Bijou]

It should be but it will not due to gender. As Like_It_Hot wrote, in today's trend it would probably considered as Illegal Appropriation and he is right. I just wanted to point out the double standard.

Nice little whatabouttism, there. Not particularly useful, though.



Actually, they are both Reproductive coercion. There is no double standard.

There are three forms of reproductive coercion, including pregnancy coercion, birth control sabotage, and controlling the outcome of a pregnancy.

Birth control sabotage​

Birth control sabotage involves tampering with contraception or interfering with the use of contraception. Birth control sabotage includes removing a condom after agreeing to wear one (also called stealthing), damaging a condom, removing or lying about the use of contraception (including vaginal rings, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and contraceptive patches), or throwing away (or simply lying about the consumption of) oral contraceptive pills. Other methods of birth control sabotage include preventing a partner from obtaining or refilling contraceptive prescriptions, refusing to wear a condom, stating that a condom is being worn when one is not, not withdrawing after agreeing to do so, exaggerating the risks of hormonal contraceptives, not informing a partner after ceasing the use of female-controlled contraception or removing contraceptive devices, and not telling a partner if a condom broke or fell off.

Both are considered stealthing:

Purposefully damaging a condom before or during intercourse may also be referred to as stealthing, regardless of who damaged the condom.

So.. What double standard are you referring to? Wait, don't answer because this is even better:

A 2013 article in The Week speculated: "Both men and women can be perpetrators of birth control sabotage. In fact, women have often been stereotyped as purposefully trying to get pregnant against their partner's desires as a way to 'trap' a man. But the issues of reproductive coercion and birth control sabotage have recently gained more attention because of a Canadian case [R v Hutchinson], in which a man poked holes in a pack of condoms so his girlfriend would get pregnant and stay with him."

Just curious, do you know of many online websites and communities of women dedicated to sharing tips on how to sabotage condoms to get themselves pregnant and subsequently bragging about it? I'm not aware of any but maybe you've come across these websites?

Is there A Comprehensive Guide ?


Would that qualify as a double standard? Or just the usual misogyny?

---

If you're curious, there was no equivalent related google search for a female right to stealth, or a guide to stealthing. Double standard?

 

[Like_It_Hot]

I don't really get the fuss about this thing. If you are with a woman, and about to have sex, and she require you to wear a condom, and you say no, and then she decide she don't wan to proceed because o it and you force yourself on her, its already a rape anyway... So why this nuance? Is there something i don't get?

Dans cette affaire, la plaignante avait clairement fait savoir à Ross Kirkpatrick « qu’elle donnerait son accord à des rapports sexuels avec lui seulement s’il portait un condom, ce qu’il a fait à leur premier rapport sexuel ». Mais lors de leur deuxième relation sexuelle, l’homme n’en a pas porté. « Ce n’est qu’après que Kirkpatrick a éjaculé en elle que la plaignante s’est rendu compte qu’il ne portait pas de condom ». C’est sur la base de ces évènements que M. Kirkpatrick a été accusé d’agression sexuelle.

Le juge de première instance a donné raison à M. Kirkpatrick. Selon lui, la plaignante avait consenti à l’« activité sexuelle », même s’il n’y avait pas eu port de condom.
La Cour d’appel a soutenu que le premier juge n’aurait pas dû rejeter l’accusation et M. Kirkpatrick a donc porté cette décision en appel à la Cour suprême du Canada.

La Cour suprême a rejeté l’appel de M. Kirkpatrick et elle exige maintenant la tenue d’un nouveau procès.

Au nom des juges majoritaires de la Cour suprême, la juge Sheilah L. Martin a affirmé que lorsque le port du condom est une condition à la relation sexuelle, « il n’y a pas de consentement à l’acte physique qui consiste à avoir des rapports sexuels sans condom ».

Toute l'histoire ici: https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/...u-condom-peut-etre-une-agression-sexuelle.php

 

[CLOUD 500]

Nice little whatabouttism, there. Not particularly useful, though.



Actually, they are both Reproductive coercion. There is no double standard.









Both are considered stealthing:







So.. What double standard are you referring to? Wait, don't answer because this is even better:







Just curious, do you know of many online websites and communities of women dedicated to sharing tips on how to sabotage condoms to get themselves pregnant and subsequently bragging about it? I'm not aware of any but maybe you've come across these websites?

Is there A Comprehensive Guide ?


Would that qualify as a double standard? Or just the usual misogyny?

---

If you're curious, there was no equivalent related google search for a female right to stealth, or a guide to stealthing. Double standard?


View attachment 31082View attachment 31083

You are making a lot of assumptions. Initially I asked a question, you obviously was offended. About stealthing, you taught me something new, I did not know such a term existed. As for double standards, the picture you posted "Mans Right to Stealth", you just proved my point about Double Standards.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

It's a good ruling.

The part that annoys me is this: you're a guy. You've used your game/wit/good looks to get a woman to sleep with you, and the best way to repay her consent to sleep with you is not follow one simple rule. Obviously, sex sans condom feels better, but sex with a condom also feels very good enough that wearing a condom shouldn't be a deal breaker for the guy. Some people...

 

[Halloween Mike]

Dans cette affaire, la plaignante avait clairement fait savoir à Ross Kirkpatrick « qu’elle donnerait son accord à des rapports sexuels avec lui seulement s’il portait un condom, ce qu’il a fait à leur premier rapport sexuel ». Mais lors de leur deuxième relation sexuelle, l’homme n’en a pas porté. « Ce n’est qu’après que Kirkpatrick a éjaculé en elle que la plaignante s’est rendu compte qu’il ne portait pas de condom ». C’est sur la base de ces évènements que M. Kirkpatrick a été accusé d’agression sexuelle.

Ah ok c'est relier en particulier a une affaire. Sa explique.

 

[Anna Bijou]

Au nom des juges majoritaires de la Cour suprême, la juge Sheilah L. Martin a affirmé que lorsque le port du condom est une condition à la relation sexuelle, « il n’y a pas de consentement à l’acte physique qui consiste à avoir des rapports sexuels sans condom ».

Toute l'histoire ici: https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/...u-condom-peut-etre-une-agression-sexuelle.php

Interesting. Now if they could decriminalize prostitution and apply the same argument to payment (consent conditional on payment). Wouldn't that be interesting! If it applies to one type of condition, should apply to any reasonable condition that's been communicated and agreed upon by both parties. hmm.

 

[Anna Bijou]

You are making a lot of assumptions. Initially I asked a question, you obviously was offended. About stealthing, you thought me something new, I did not know such a term existed. As for double standards, the picture you posted "Mans Right to Stealth", you just proved my point about Double Standards.

I wasn't offended babe xo I learned something new today, too. I knew of stealthing but had never heard of reproductive coercion.

 

[Numerati]

Yeah same. I thought stealthing was about fighter planes and all especially after watching Top Gun Maverick. Didn’t know it is about this stupid nonsense.

 

[GreyPilgrim]

If it applies to one type of condition, should apply to any reasonable condition that's been communicated and agreed upon by both parties. hmm.

Short answer? Yes, absolutely.

I’ve been hobbying long enough to respect, value and feel protective of anyone who provides this service. Any legislation that could create safer and fairer work conditions for them would have my vote.

I mean… how weird is it that we have clear legislation to oversee the trade of things as potentially dangerous as drugs and alcohol and so little when it comes to something as healthy and necessary as sex?!?

 

[Like_It_Hot]

La constitutionnalité de la loi sur la prostitution devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Ici un article récent traitant de la sécurité des travailleuses du sexe et de l'impossibilité légale pour le moment d'établir clairement les conditions avec les clients via des annonces.

C'est relié au consentement qui est à la base de ce fil de discussion et une mise au point sur la situation actuelle du point de vue de la prostitution.

Il traite aussi de la révision de la loi par l'actuel gouvernement: "Me Rippell souligne que l'actuelle loi est inefficace et que le gouvernement (de Stephen Harper) a adopté un mauvais modèle, plutôt que de régler le problème une fois pour toutes.Il se dit toutefois encouragé que le gouvernement libéral de Justin Trudeau soit en train de revoir la législation à la lumière du dernier jugement de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario."

Article complet d'avril 2022: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvell...isation-legalisation-canada-modele-scandinave