Refusing to wear a condom during sex after being asked to by a partner could be a crime, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled. In a unanimous decision, the court said pretending to use a condom or taking one off before sex without the partner’s consent, sometimes called stealthing, could be a violation of the legal conditions for consensual sex, the CBC reports. That can be grounds for a sexual assault conviction, the court said, finding that consenting to sex with a condom does not confer consent for sex without a condom. “Sex with and without a condom are fundamentally and qualitatively distinct forms of physical touching,” Justice Sheilah Martin wrote in the majority decision.
The case was brought by a British Columbia woman who said that she insisted a man wear a condom, and that he agreed before they had sex the first time. The second time they had sex, she said she didn’t realize he wasn’t wearing a condom, according to the filing. He was acquitted of a sexual assault charge after the judge ruled there was a lack of evidence that the woman had consented to sex with or without a condom. An appeals court ordered a new trial, and the man appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld that decision Friday. more
Will this rule only apply to heterosexuals having consensual sex and not to gays who practice nonconsensual sex? The fags will probably get a pass as a protected victim class.
Well ladies, you know what they say: sleep with dogs, you get pregnant…
…or something like that.
Is that anything like the blonde joke where the blonde was bragging to her brunette friend that she was doing it doggy style and she was afraid that she’d have puppies.
Gentlemen: take a short community college course on paternity and family law. This should cure you of “stealthing” if you were so inclined.
But, as Geoff alluded to, not disclosing that you have AIDS before you have sex with someone is hunky-dory.
You also notice that in Canada you can be acquitted and the prosecution can appeal and you can be tried again. After the OJ trial I was watching The National on CBC. The CBC reporterette asked Gloria Allred if the prosecution was going to appeal. Allred had a shocked look in her eyes and said, “Not in the US, they aren’t.”
I knew it was only a matter of time before the government not only steps into our bedroom but slips in between the sheets.
Wasnt it just yesterdays that condoms were know as rubbers and were the province of low life slugs
Now they’re objects to be worshipped
In the UK condoms are called Johnnies with the catch phrase of, If you’re feeling randy keep some Johnnies handy.
But murdering an unborn child is a encouraged woman’s right.
…ok, my wife would kill me if she knew I told anyone this, but I can trust YOU guys, right? I wonder where this would fall on the Canadian Consent spectrum…
…when we were young and childless and full of hormones, we kind of wanted to STAY childless for awhile, but not forever, so I made use of condoms, sucessfully so.
Mostly.
…this ONE time, tho, well, we kind of didn’t sequence correctly, so some activity may have taken place in the first rush that possibly could have led to the, ah, contamination of the surface the condom was to be applied to, that caused it to be prematurely slippery on the INSIDE.
Which is BAD.
…but, quality control doesn’t mean a lot to a stiff dick, so after a hurried unfurling of the reservoir-tipped standard over the 45 degree flagpole that SEEMED effective, once more unto the breach he went again, my friends, BIG time, and VERY enthusiastically, TOO.
Well, there comes that time in the afterglow when the dusagreeable task of disposing of certain materials becomes necessary, but in this PARTICULAR case, the removal action was hindered by the complete absence of the windsock in question.
Knowing full well it had been applied, a search was initiated of the immediate, and sweaty, area, and other than the wrapper the thing came in from a tangle of sheets, there was no evidence it ever existed.
Uh.
Oh.
…this led to a more private, intimate search of the, eh, scene of the crime, so to speak, which I truthfully did not mind as I had only very recently thoroughly visited the region on a somewhat lengthy and active pleasure cruise, but without it becoming gynocologically incompatable with intimacy (not to mention VERY RUDE), nary hide nor hair were to be seen of that rascal-wrapper.
…so…
…Later, at the hospital, after having delicately explaining our moonlight dilemma with a red-faced recounting of the facts to an amused triage nurse, and considerably LESS delecate but FAR more intimate discussion with a pretty well maintaining house gyno and his snickering assistant, a professional search in earnest was conducted for the wayward wiener wrapper, which deteriorated quickly as there was STILL difficulty getting visual conformation without the tools of the trade, so after I again confirmed that deployment had occurred but recovery had not, that worthy then turned to his tray of shiny tools to select the speculum, a device I had hitherto been aware of, but had NEVER actually WANTED to witness in action.
…I remained with my mortifed wife because, well, the situation was kind of my fault, and I had to do my penance by suffering in spirit if not on stirrups. Truth be told, she was kind of amused although very embarassed too, and she was FAR more forgiving than I would have been in similar straits.
..it was all WORTH it, though, when Dr. Hymen (not his real name – duh) finally visualized the prize he sought, and …not bragging or nothing…he said, honest to goodness, “That sure is crammed really deep in there!”.
…beet-faced though I was, it was all I could do to not say, “Why, Thank You!”
…for which, the wife’s look assured me, I would have been well and truly neutered once she arose from her accouchment, so I clamped down HARD lest I never be given an opportunity to display such prowess ever again, and sheepishly held my peace.
…I don’t know if the female assistant reacted to this data point or not. Given her previous risibiliy, I didn’t dare look.
…so, after everyone was good and embarassed, with a hospital bill to pay and the rest of what had been an intimate evening lost, Dr. Hymen cautioned us that whatever the condom was supposed to prevent, it most assuredly did not do so in that position, he bid us go thou forth and lubricate no more.
Lesson learned, evening both wonderful early and wrecked late, but with a story to tell in MY view, but “Don’t You DARE!” in hers.
So, I DIDN’T tell it.
Until many, many years later, right here, an IO exclusive.
…so, keep it to yourselves, eh, guys? Don’t put it on the Internet or anything…but if one of our Canadian contingent can pose the query of the laytex tribunal or whatever it is you guys have up there, it would be interesting to hear how they respond to imperfect world problems such as this, whether a detached rubber invites a prison sentence and how long would a Canadian court spend arguing about sheathe application intent in a case like this. You -could- do this intentionally. But how would you PROVE it? And does that make consensual sex into rape if the rubber bursts?
…soo many questions, but the biggest one, to me, is … don’t Canadian courts have BETTER things to do with their time?
And I ask this from your Southern border, Canadians, because I’ve noticed that in our globally tyrannical times that really stupid laws seem to infect every country eventually, and you guys seem to be the beta testers so I view it as coming attractions even though the topic doesn’t involve me NERALY as much as it once did…
I was carded for a price check once at Walgreens over the PA while buying condoms. It was humiliating, my wife thought it was freaking hilarious and said it was something that could only happen to me.
“Coming” attractions, SNS? *wink wink*
“physical touching”
As opposed to … what? … metaphysical touching?
And this from a “learned” judge?
The Canuks shouldn’t elevate imbeciles to the bench – they should leave them hanging out at the dumpster or scrubbing shithouses.
mortem tyrannis
izlamo delenda est …
How do you establish proof of such a crime?