https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/ 44 minutes ago California Is Set To Outlaw Unannounced Condom Removal by Elizabeth Nolan Brown California is set to outlaw unannounced condom removal. A bill that passed the California legislature earlier this week and now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom's signature would be the first in the country to make such "stealthing" a cause for legal action. But the measure (Assembly Bill 453) will not work through the state's criminal code. Rather, removing a condom without a sexual partner's verbal consent will become grounds for a civil lawsuit and punitive damages, with the act added to the state's civil definition of sexual battery. Under A.B. 453, "a person commits a sexual battery who causes contact between a sexual organ, from which a condom has been removed, and the intimate part of another who did not verbally consent to the condom being removed." In effect, it creates an affirmative consent rule for condom removal. Supporters of the legislation say that consenting to safe sex doesn't mean consenting to sex without a condom. Thus, furtively removing a condom before or during sexual activity amounts to rape. Yet determining who is telling the truth in such cases will be incredibly tricky. If nothing else, this seems like a very difficult claim to prove in court. ("How the **** is this enforceable?" comments Nancy Rommelmann on Twitter. "It's not.") Even folks who agree with the theory behind the law note that proving an offense may be impossible. And what if someone never puts on a condom in the first place but their partner mistakenly thinks they did—could that partner still sue? Will the law punish people who inadvertently lose a condom during sex? Won't people sued under the law simply claim this is what happened? All in all, enforcement here seems like a logistical nightmare. That's not necessarily a reason to oppose the law. (Proving sexual assault claims in general can be difficult, of course.) But it does suggest that the measure may be more symbolic than anything else. It also means the measure could be ripe for abuse—disproportionately wielded against the same parties who routinely suffer most under U.S. laws. In any event, it seems at odds with California's 2017 move to reduce penalties for knowingly exposing someone to HIV.
I get the point but yeah this is too difficult to create a law. Let cases like this go to court and be heard on a case by case basis.
We have entered the age of "Conditional Consent" Which moves from mere consent. This will prove interesting. Esp when women will be able to be persecuted for it. In my opinion....how is this different from a woman lying about being on the pill? A woman "saving" sperm for later or whatever the NBA groupies do? Putting holes in condoms?? This will be interesting to say the least. Rocket River
Do you stealth? It’s an interesting concept to me. I would assume there isn’t much judgment around here. personally I would never stealth someone
Nah .. . . honestly never thought about it until I heard about it I never knew it was . . "a thing" Rocket River
This is a new one. Could even say it's an assault on "men's rights". Bit of dirtiness on both sides for this to be an issue though. Honestly, **** like this makes me think humanity is not evolving or becoming more decent or enlightened. There shouldn't have to be laws for this kind of crap. We just happen to get by with more people and more toys.
