Sex crimes implications of disputes over condoms within sexual encounters.

[theunrealthing]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

What are the rights of each party to a sexual encounter with respect to use of condoms? Does a man or woman, for instance, have the right to ‘refuse’ to use a condom if it makes them uncomfortable for any reason? Suppose the female asks that a condom be used, but the man 'refuses' to wear a condom. If the woman then ‘consents’ to his preference, is any crime being committed? In other words, does the party that ‘wins’ the condom dispute commit a sex crime against the party that submits to the other person's demands? What if a woman threatens to accuse a man of rape if he refuses to submit to her request to wear a condom? Would the girl then be guilty of assault/sexual assault for forcing him to wear a condom and then penetrate her? Assume the man only informed her he would not have sex with her unless it was unprotected and simply made those the terms under which he would have intercourse.

Please consider the above hypotheticals in relation to Ohio laws on Rape, Sexual Battery, Sexual Imposition, Gross Sexual Imposition.

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

What are the rights of each party to a sexual encounter with respect to use of condoms? Does a man or woman, for instance, have the right to ‘refuse’ to use a condom if it makes them uncomfortable for any reason?

Yes, and the other person then has the right to say no condom, no sex. All parties to the encounter need to consent to how the encounter goes.

I'm not going to go through all the different circumstances that might arise, however. There are a huge number of potential scenarios, and it's not going to do much good to try to go through all of them. Keep in mind what I said above, all parties to the encounter need to consent to how the encounter goes — consent being freely given and not obtained by threats, tricks, etc. Keep that principle in mind you should be ok.

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

What are the rights of each party to a sexual encounter with respect to use of condoms? Does a man or woman, for instance, have the right to ‘refuse’ to use a condom if it makes them uncomfortable for any reason? Suppose the female asks that a condom be used, but the man 'refuses' to wear a condom. If the woman then ‘consents’ to his preference, is any crime being committed? In other words, does the party that ‘wins’ the condom dispute commit a sex crime against the party that submits to the other person's demands? What if a woman threatens to accuse a man of rape if he refuses to submit to her request to wear a condom? Would the girl then be guilty of assault/sexual assault for forcing him to wear a condom and then penetrate her? Assume the man only informed her he would not have sex with her unless it was unprotected and simply made those the terms under which he would have intercourse.

Please consider the above hypotheticals in relation to Ohio laws on Rape, Sexual Battery, Sexual Imposition, Gross Sexual Imposition.

sigh...We don't do hypothetical questions. If you have a real legal situation please post what is going on.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

What are the rights of each party to a sexual encounter with respect to use of condoms? Does a man or woman, for instance, have the right to ‘refuse’ to use a condom if it makes them uncomfortable for any reason? Suppose the female asks that a condom be used, but the man 'refuses' to wear a condom. If the woman then ‘consents’ to his preference, is any crime being committed? In other words, does the party that ‘wins’ the condom dispute commit a sex crime against the party that submits to the other person's demands? What if a woman threatens to accuse a man of rape if he refuses to submit to her request to wear a condom? Would the girl then be guilty of assault/sexual assault for forcing him to wear a condom and then penetrate her? Assume the man only informed her he would not have sex with her unless it was unprotected and simply made those the terms under which he would have intercourse.

Please consider the above hypotheticals in relation to Ohio laws on Rape, Sexual Battery, Sexual Imposition, Gross Sexual Imposition.

Of course a man has the right to refuse to wear a condom. The woman also has the right to refuse to have sex with the man if he won't wear a condom. If the man pushes the issue instead of accepting that no means no, then yes, he could be accused of rape and possibly convicted of rape. The bottom line is whether or not real consent happens.

And no, there is no court in this country that will convict a woman of sexual assault if a man ends up wearing a condom against his will and has sex with her. Why? Because if he actually suits up and then has sex, its going to be hard for him to say that he said no to sex. And, if he tries to say that he said no to protected sex, but was willing to have unprotected sex, but she forced him to have protected sex?...seriously?

 

[Just Blue]

px hx.

 

[theunrealthing]

Of course a man has the right to refuse to wear a condom. The woman also has the right to refuse to have sex with the man if he won't wear a condom. If the man pushes the issue instead of accepting that no means no, then yes, he could be accused of rape and possibly convicted of rape. The bottom line is whether or not real consent happens.

But what about the concept of 'stealthing'? This is when a man or woman surreptitiously removes a condom during sex and continues having intercourse with the girl when she 'supposedly' does not know that the other person removed the condom. This is supposedly legal because the law 'does not see condoms' as part of the issue of consent to intercourse in most states. Based on my reading though, it appears it's only legal if the woman is 'fooled' and does not say stop. If she says stop, and he continues, then it becomes rape.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1040160313/california-stealthing-nonconsensual-condom-removal

And no, there is no court in this country that will convict a woman of sexual assault if a man ends up wearing a condom against his will and has sex with her. Why? Because if he actually suits up and then has sex, its going to be hard for him to say that he said no to sex. And, if he tries to say that he said no to protected sex, but was willing to have unprotected sex, but she forced him to have protected sex?...seriously?

Coerced 'consent' is different from true consent though. If the girl makes a threat, a serious one like a false rape allegation, then we have something less than 'force', which is more deterministic. Less deterministic forms of force are understood under the rubric of coercion in Ohio. There is no consent in the presence of an express or implied threat (an unlawful threat to be specific). That means if she threatens him (unlawfully) to put the condom on and sleep with her then we have an issue of 'coerced consent,' which is no consent at all. If the man made it clear he would only have sex bareback and revokes consent to sex because she wants a condom, and then she tries to coerce him, then consent is negated. Your position is like saying a person was never raped if the offender is successful in raping them. The concept of coercion assumes the person behaves voluntarily 'to a degree,' but under the influence of coercion, which is different than the more deterministic concept of 'force.'

See this Ohio Statute on Sexual Battery--

§ 2907.03. Sexual battery.

(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:

(1) The offender knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution.

See? The concept of coercion presumes some degree of voluntariness over the action. However, a threat of false rape charges is serious, and sufficient to overcome the will of the ordinary person, force them to put the condom on, and then penetrate the female after the male revoked consent because he did not want to submit to wearing a condom.

 

[Just Blue]

But what about the concept of 'stealthing'? This is when a man or woman surreptitiously removes a condom during sex and continues having intercourse with the girl when she 'supposedly' does not know that the other removed the condom. This is supposedly legal because the law 'does not see condoms' as part of the issue of consent to intercourse in most states.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1040160313/california-stealthing-nonconsensual-condom-removal



Coerced 'consent' is different from true consent though. If the girl makes a threat, a serious one like a false rape allegation, then we have something less than 'force', which is more deterministic. Less deterministic forms of force are understood under the rubric of coercion in Ohio. There is no consent in the presence of an express or implied threat (an unlawful threat to be specific). That means if she threatens him (unlawfully) to put the condom on and sleep with her then we have an issue of 'coerced consent,' which is no consent at all. If the man made it clear he would only have sex bareback and revokes consent to sex because she wants a condom, and then she tries to coerce him, then consent is negated. Your position is like saying a person was never raped if the offender is successful in raping them. The concept of coercion assumes the person behaves voluntarily 'to a degree,' but under the influence of coercion, which is different than the more deterministic concept of 'force.'

Do you have a real legal situation going on? No? then take this topic to a chat/discussion site.

 

[LdiJ]

But what about the concept of 'stealthing'? This is when a man or woman surreptitiously removes a condom during sex and continues having intercourse with the girl when she 'supposedly' does not know that the other removed the condom. This is supposedly legal because the law 'does not see condoms' as part of the issue of consent to intercourse in most states.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1040160313/california-stealthing-nonconsensual-condom-removal



Coerced 'consent' is different from true consent though. If the girl makes a threat, a serious one like a false rape allegation, then we have something less than 'force', which is more deterministic. Less deterministic forms of force are understood under the rubric of coercion in Ohio. There is no consent in the presence of an express or implied threat (an unlawful threat to be specific). That means if she threatens him (unlawfully) to put the condom on and sleep with her then we have an issue of 'coerced consent,' which is no consent at all. If the man made it clear he would only have sex bareback and revokes consent to sex because she wants a condom, and then she tries to coerce him, then consent is negated. Your position is like saying a person was never raped if the offender is successful in raping them. The concept of coercion assumes the person behaves voluntarily 'to a degree,' but under the influence of coercion, which is different than the more deterministic concept of 'force.'

Seriously? Really, Seriously?

 

[quincy]

But what about the concept of 'stealthing'? This is when a man or woman surreptitiously removes a condom during sex and continues having intercourse with the girl when she 'supposedly' does not know that the other removed the condom. This is supposedly legal because the law 'does not see condoms' as part of the issue of consent to intercourse in most states.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1040160313/california-stealthing-nonconsensual-condom-removal



Coerced 'consent' is different from true consent though. If the girl makes a threat, a serious one like a false rape allegation, then we have something less than 'force', which is more deterministic. Less deterministic forms of force are understood under the rubric of coercion in Ohio. There is no consent in the presence of an express or implied threat (an unlawful threat to be specific). That means if she threatens him (unlawfully) to put the condom on and sleep with her then we have an issue of 'coerced consent,' which is no consent at all. If the man made it clear he would only have sex bareback and revokes consent to sex because she wants a condom, and then she tries to coerce him, then consent is negated. Your position is like saying a person was never raped if the offender is successful in raping them. The concept of coercion assumes the person behaves voluntarily 'to a degree,' but under the influence of coercion, which is different than the more deterministic concept of 'force.'

If you are removing a condom after promising to wear one, prepare yourself for 17 years of child support payments.

 

[theunrealthing]

Seriously? Really, Seriously?

Really? Seriously? You call that an educated response?

 

[theunrealthing]

If you are removing a condom after promising to wear one, prepare yourself for 17 years of child support payments.

Now you're character defaming me. I'm reporting you to the FBI for coercion, intimidation, and extortion. I have never done such a thing in my life. I was victim to stealthing. Next time, don't pass judgement on a situation framed in a hypothetical scenario. Rocket science. You're actually giving advice on a legal forum? My own responses clearly demonstrated more advanced intellect and knowledge of the law than your own.

 

[quincy]

Now you're character defaming me. I'm reporting you to the FBI for coercion, intimidation, and extortion. I have never done such a thing in my life. I was victim to stealthing.

Seriously? Be aware that falsely reporting a crime is a crime: https://www.fbi.gov

Here is a link to your previous thread on this forum:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/who-to-name-as-respondent-in-protection-order-against-police-harassment.650042/

 

[theunrealthing]

Seriously?

https://www.fbi.gov

Already been done. Sent it straight to their email. With a print .pdf of the entire thread, plus proof you made my rebuttal to your defamatory statement invisible to blackmail me. TOS won't matter either. You can't create your own rules that let you commit extortion, falsification (frame up), intimidation, etc.

 

[quincy]

Already been done. Sent it straight to their email. With a print .pdf of the entire thread, plus proof you made my rebuttal to your defamatory statement invisible to blackmail me.

Your previous post and this thread were reported for moderator review.

If you have a real concern about “stealthing,” I recommend you consult with an attorney in your area.

 

[theunrealthing]

Your previous post and this thread were reported for moderator review.

If you have a real concern about “stealthing,” I recommend you consult with an attorney in your area.

Thanks for clarifying that detail (that someone else flagged it). I'll be sure to let them know.