No Condom means you could be charged with Sexual Assault

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #277326

    Supreme Court rules not wearing condom against partner’s wishes could lead to sexual assault conviction

    People who don’t wear condoms during sex after being told to by their sexual partners can be convicted of sexual assault, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today.

    In its unanimous decision, the top court ruled that “stealthing” — the act of pretending to use a condom, or removing one prior to sex without the partner’s consent — can violate the legal grounds for consensual sex.

    Yet another one-sided ruling.

    “A complainant who consents to sex on the condition that their partner wear a condom does not consent to sex without a condom.”

    And what if your partner LIES about being on the pill, sperm-jacking, or gives their partner a tampered with condom (in order to get pregnant against the wishes of your partner)… guess that is still legal.

    “One is that the law has changed, essentially, retrospectively, so what wasn’t against the law at one stage now is,”…

    The courts once again makes a law (interpretations) that was never written into the law.

    “From a feminist perspective, this is a really important and great decision,” …

    “What this does is it creates clarity, and also is a decision that really respects women’s autonomy and dignity, and that is incredibly important.”

    And yet, a clarity of the male’s sperm-jacking and tricking them into forced fatherhood/child support has yet to be address.

    “Internationally, it’s a really significant decision. In no other place now is the law, the criminal law, as clear on this question that condom use is part of what you’re agreeing to when you agree to sex.”

    Then I demand the courts to also recognize in criminal law sperm-jacking, lying on one’s use of preventative pregnancy means, and its sexual assault implications, and how so many males are sexually assaulted (by this new definition of sexual assault) when the consent of sexual protection the females give is false/lie/entrapment.

    If either partner lies or consent is given under false conditions, that is by this new definition SEXUAL ASSAULT.

    It MUST be equally applied to males and females.

    #277341
    Mustangride1
    Moderator

      Dafaque?

      Ok if you are being told to wear a condom you wear one….. But after this ruling I would say it is safer for your “legal jeopardy” to hand the person a Dildo and get up and leave.

      I am all for safe sex, all for abiding by a persons wishes for protection, but after this Bullshit by the court, I could see a bad break up end-up being a sexual assault charge. Court IMO should have ruled “Consensual sex relations is just that and will not get involved beyond that point” But nope another example of a court acting Lawmakers instead of law-enforcers.

      #277344
      Vknid
      Moderator

        Another reason to just keep it in your pants.

      Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!

      SIGN UP FOR UPDATES!

      NAVIGATION