Stupid sex laws

[DrZoidberg]

Here's an uncritical BBC article about a dumb new law touted as protecting women. It's now illegal to take off the condom during sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58848000

Sweden has had the same law for decades. It's idiotic. What if the guy says:

"She agreed that I take it off"
"the condom broke"
"she agreed to sex without a condom"

Then it's dead in the water. So obviously a stupid and unenforceable law. Yes, it would be great if men could be punished who do this. But they can't.

This was the law Julian Assange allegedly broke in Sweden and was accused of rape because of it. Worth noting is that neither of the two women had any interest in pressing charges. Because they themselves realized the unenforceability of it. This was something the prosecutor ran with anyway. Completely unenforceable. I guess she just hoped that Julian would admit to the crime in court. So silly.

Sweden now has a bizarre hodge podge of conflicting and overlapping laws on sex crime, creating absurd effects. These are all populistic and intended to protect women, without any thought on if it actually does. And they keep making new laws.

Passing these kinds of laws aren't zero cost. They bloat an already top heavy legal system (=which you pay for through taxes) creating jobs for lawyers without it benefitting anybody.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, but does the law say you have to put it on in the first place?

 

[thebeave]

It is a very uncool thing to do. One can get a woman pregnant or pass on an STD to her by doing it. But, yeah, in a court case, it does come down to a "he said/she said" situation, making anything hard to prove, and perhaps a waste of time and money. But conversely, if a woman says she is on birth control and is lying, then I'd say that is worthy of the same legal treatment as the man removing the condom. Maybe the answer is to record all sexual situations from now on.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, if Texas passes this law, pregnant woman can sue baby daddy under the Rubber Removal Act, but baby daddy could sue....Sounds like Texas justice to me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, if Texas passes this law, pregnant woman can sue baby daddy under the Rubber Removal Act, but baby daddy could sue....Sounds like Texas justice to me.

Get real. A Texas Stealthing Act would require that she produce the condom in court, with his fingerprints on it, no sperm within it, and proof the wrapper or the box it came out of had not exceed its shelf-life; and two witnesses to her saying, "okay, but only if you use a condom."
Anything less gets too close to a 'he said/she said' situation where she has a 50% chance of success (depending on jury selection).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, how do you prove it unless you have a recording?

I think the law should exist anyway, though. It sends a message that it's unacceptable behavior.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a very uncool thing to do. One can get a woman pregnant or pass on an STD to her by doing it. But, yeah, in a court case, it does come down to a "he said/she said" situation, making anything hard to prove, and perhaps a waste of time and money. But conversely, if a woman says she is on birth control and is lying, then I'd say that is worthy of the same legal treatment as the man removing the condom. Maybe the answer is to record all sexual situations from now on.

I think the porn industry has already been working toward that end.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Much as I would giggle at the disgrace that a Trump sex tape would bring to Captain Combover, there are some sights that no person should have to see. Vivisections, accident trauma, leprosy symptoms may need to be studied, but Donald, mid-splooge? I care about the country too much. And think of the children. The children.

 

[steve_bank]

According to the Vatican past ruling on birth control, condoms are an abomination against god.

And I thought extreme American progressives were whacky.

The OP is the kind of thing conservatives over here use to instill fear of 'socialism', they point to Europe and this kind of over control.

Up through the 90s in the USA consensual hetero oral sex was illegal in many states. In the 79s when I was stationed in Virginia in the Navy a kid observed his parents having oral sex. He told other kids. One thing led to another and police showed up at the house.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Condoms aren't the best answer. They can break. And the pill can malfunction, too. Our kids should be told the truth: you want to avoid teen pregnancy? You want to delay having a baby to raise before you're ready, or even married, or even employed? The answer is "the A word", the time-honored, foolproof way to never be pregnant. You can call it a buzz kill, say that it's not as fun, but, if you don't want a bun in the oven, kids, practice the A word. Anal.

 

[steve_bank]

I read that before penicillin STDs were a major deterrent on sex outside of marriage.

Condoms plus the pill, even better abstinence. Yea that's it, abstinence.

 

[none]

Here's an uncritical BBC article about a dumb new law touted as protecting women. It's now illegal to take off the condom during sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58848000

Sweden has had the same law for decades. It's idiotic. What if the guy says:

"She agreed that I take it off"
"the condom broke"
"she agreed to sex without a condom"

Then it's dead in the water. So obviously a stupid and unenforceable law. Yes, it would be great if men could be punished who do this. But they can't.

This was the law Julian Assange allegedly broke in Sweden and was accused of rape because of it. Worth noting is that neither of the two women had any interest in pressing charges. Because they themselves realized the unenforceability of it. This was something the prosecutor ran with anyway. Completely unenforceable. I guess she just hoped that Julian would admit to the crime in court. So silly.

Sweden now has a bizarre hodge podge of conflicting and overlapping laws on sex crime, creating absurd effects. These are all populistic and intended to protect women, without any thought on if it actually does. And they keep making new laws.

Passing these kinds of laws aren't zero cost. They bloat an already top heavy legal system (=which you pay for through taxes) creating jobs for lawyers without it benefitting anybody.

You want me taking the only thing you have as resource off?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I read that before penicillin STDs were a major deterrent on sex outside of marriage.

Condoms plus the pill, even better abstinence. Yea that's it, abstinence.

Actually no. Historically, the ability for a woman to be abstinent is a luxury. Which is why it's been held up as a virtue. I'm pretty sure the shame around STD's meant that they would see it as a punishment from God, rather than an infectious disease.

I saw a study on mitochondrial DNA. The time period when most people were born out of wedlock was in the 1860'ies to 1890'ies. The hypothesis is that it has to do with the demographic shift of European cities full of destitute women, pushed off their childhood farms, who needed a way to make money. Almost every woman who could was strongly incentivized to have sex with somebody rich.

Hence the Victorian age's very anti sex vibe. It was a society sexually out of control in a way we wouldn't see again until the 1960'ies. Rape and sexual abuse was so prevalent it became normalized. Prostitutes had never been cheaper.

I'd argue that we've never really had a society where we let women just do their thing, so we don't really know how that society would look like. Even in super progressive today's world we still love to put our noses in what women should do or be. Facebook has a meltdown over nipples. Even some feminists get upset when other women "betray" them by being slutty.

 

[none]

I read that before penicillin STDs were a major deterrent on sex outside of marriage.

Condoms plus the pill, even better abstinence. Yea that's it, abstinence.

Actually no. Historically, the ability for a woman to be abstinent is a luxury. Which is why it's been held up as a virtue. I'm pretty sure the shame around STD's meant that they would see it as a punishment from God, rather than an infectious disease.

I saw a study on mitochondrial DNA. The time period when most people were born out of wedlock was in the 1860'ies to 1890'ies. The hypothesis is that it has to do with the demographic shift of European cities full of destitute women who needed a way to make money. Almost every woman who could was strongly incentivized to have sex with somebody rich.

Hence the Victorian age's very anti sex vibe. It was a society sexually out of control in a way we wouldn't see again until the 1960'ies. Rape and sexual abuse was so prevalent it became normalized. Prostitutes had never been cheaper.

I'd argue that we've never really had a society where we let women just do their thing, so we don't really know how that society would look like. Even in super progressive today's world we still love to put our noses in what women should do or be. Facebook has a meltdown over nipples. Even some feminists get upset when other women "betray" them by being slutty.

Hooker With A Penis - Maynard D.BA. Tool.
Get a clue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Condoms aren't the best answer. They can break. And the pill can malfunction, too. Our kids should be told the truth: you want to avoid teen pregnancy? You want to delay having a baby to raise before you're ready, or even married, or even employed? The answer is "the A word", the time-honored, foolproof way to never be pregnant. You can call it a buzz kill, say that it's not as fun, but, if you don't want a bun in the oven, kids, practice the A word. Anal.

Two words: Splash conception.

Anal isn't foolproof. Leaks out, dribbles down over the vagina.

 

[steve_bank]

I read that before penicillin STDs were a major deterrent on sex outside of marriage.

Condoms plus the pill, even better abstinence. Yea that's it, abstinence.

Actually no. Historically, the ability for a woman to be abstinent is a luxury. Which is why it's been held up as a virtue. I'm pretty sure the shame around STD's meant that they would see it as a punishment from God, rather than an infectious disease.

I saw a study on mitochondrial DNA. The time period when most people were born out of wedlock was in the 1860'ies to 1890'ies. The hypothesis is that it has to do with the demographic shift of European cities full of destitute women, pushed off their childhood farms, who needed a way to make money. Almost every woman who could was strongly incentivized to have sex with somebody rich.

Hence the Victorian age's very anti sex vibe. It was a society sexually out of control in a way we wouldn't see again until the 1960'ies. Rape and sexual abuse was so prevalent it became normalized. Prostitutes had never been cheaper.

I'd argue that we've never really had a society where we let women just do their thing, so we don't really know how that society would look like. Even in super progressive today's world we still love to put our noses in what women should do or be. Facebook has a meltdown over nipples. Even some feminists get upset when other women "betray" them by being slutty.

Abstinence was sarcasm.

Over here people knew the effects of syphilis. It was a deterrent. The gagster Al Capone died from it.

When I was in the Navy in the early 70s there was something euphemistically called 'the clap line'. Going to the infirmary for a dose of penicillin.