world

California moves to outlaw removing condom without permission during intercourse

37 Comments
By DON THOMPSON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments
Login to comment

Insane, more reason that Newsom needs to go.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

and how is this is a current priority?

while at the same time didnt they pass a law that its ok for people with HIV to not inform their partner?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Insane

I don't see what's insane about it. But I also don't like the idea of the government in the bedroom. I'm interested in the specifics of why you think it's insane, to see if I agree enough to pull me off the fence.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

and how is this is a current priority?

Yes, we all know the government doesn't have the capacity to work on more than one thing at a time!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I will say this, the left have definitely become more inventive if anything....smh....

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I will say this, the left have definitely become more inventive if anything....smh....

My instinct is to shake my head at the loony woke left on this one as well, as I really don't like the idea of the government being in the bedroom. But, I'm still on the fence, since I also don't want to see women being subjected to unprotected sex without their consent.

What are your thoughts on the matter? I'm curious to see if they can help me get off the fence on this.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I think the government should never get to the point where it starts creeping into your bedroom and try to dictate how you should sexually care for your partner, but on the other hand I think a man who pushes himself on a woman and impregnates her against her will (another word for rape, no matter how subtle) there should be severe and heavy penalties as well as compensation depending on the severity of the act.

At the same time if you reverse the issue, women shouldn't be allowed to trick a man into having a child he doesn't want. The idea of entrapment like that is never good and never ends well. I do think men need a little bit of legal insurance so that they don't have to be obligated to financially pay for that over the next 18-20 years, if they were tricked or blackmailed to support a child. I am just saying how I personally feel. Men should never, ever take advantage and put women in that kind of predicament, but woman also should never force a man to take responsibility for something he may not agree with.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

At the same time if you reverse the issue, women shouldn't be allowed to trick a man into having a child he doesn't want. The idea of entrapment like that is never good and never ends well. I do think men need a little bit of legal insurance so that they don't have to be obligated to financially pay for that over the next 18-20 years.

Hmm, suddenly you seem to be making the argument that the government SHOULD be involved, when you were claiming it was "insane" a few posts back.

I'm still on the fence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I agree with bass. I'm wondering how many women have gotten pregnant against their will by a guy slipping off a condom vs the number of men who because fathers because the women lied about birth control or having her tubes tied.

Seems the law only addresses half the problem. Why not fix all of it?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

*became

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Is that all the lawmakers in California can do?

How flabbergasting..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

California lawmakers moved to make the state the first to outlaw “stealthing,”

Learned a new word. I really wonder how these clown lawmakers want to police this law??

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

nope, you dont get in bed with people who you cant trust to not do "stealthing" to you. .

you also dont get into bed with someone you couldnt see yourself having a child with.

your own poor choices dont support being able to have an abortion to try to erase it all.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Good law. Those who disagree, let me know when it would be a good time for me to get some of my semen on you against your will.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

nope, you dont get in bed with people who you cant trust to not do "stealthing" to you. .

Must be nice to live in a world where deception doesn't exist.

you also dont get into bed with someone you couldnt see yourself having a child with.

Yeah, you do. Many people do. Sex, in case you weren't aware, is actually a lot of fun.

your own poor choices dont support being able to have an abortion to try to erase it all.

The choice, in this instance, was the man's, to remove the condom without permission or knowledge of the woman. So, do you think the man should be solely responsible for raising the child? If so, I can respect that. It would be consistent.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes, if this were confirmed to be the case. and if the woman had made a poor choice to sleep with a man of such poor character.

But as you seem to imply, most of this is just related to the irresponsible "sex is fun" crowd who are fine to just erase their mistakes with abortion- the killing of an innocent life.

So, do you think the man should be solely responsible for raising the child? If so, I can respect that. It would be consistent.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

What happens if it accidentally slips off?

Asking for a friend…

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes, if this were confirmed to be the case.

Good, cool. I disagree, but as I say, at least this is consistent, so I can respect that.

and if the woman had made a poor choice to sleep with a man of such poor character.

Again, I find it unusual that you seem to live in a world where people can make "poor" decisions without outside factors, such as being deceived. And it's the person who did the deceiving who did wrong. If I trick you out of your money, for example, I would be the one arrested, not you.

But as you seem to imply, most of this is just related to the irresponsible "sex is fun" crowd

Humans? Yeah. I am part of that crowd.

who are fine to just erase their mistakes with abortion- the killing of an innocent life.

If you want to stop abortions, then making it illegal to secretly take off your condom, which dramatically increases the chances of pregnancy and STDs, against the wishes of the woman, seems like a good idea, doesn't it? Good law.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

But as you seem to imply, most of this is just related to the irresponsible "sex is fun" crowd

Humans? Yeah. I am part of that crowd.

Sorry, to be fair, perhaps you are arguing that sex isn't fun.

In which case, you have my condolences.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I LOVE California, always the first in any thing, and this new law is no different. I guess now we will see people getting sued for poking a hole or removing a condom, LOL

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I LOVE California, always the first in any thing, and this new law is no different. I guess now we will see people getting sued for poking a hole or removing a condom, LOL

This is hardly new. Such laws have been on the books for awhile in other jurisdictions.

My only concern, is that it may be difficult to argue, or prove it was non-consensual in court, but that's the case with pretty much any sort of sex related crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal#Legal_status_and_interpretation_in_jurisprudence

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Men want more feeling, so he may remove the condom.

Women want a baby, so she may remove the condom.

There are always 2 sides. I've heard that for some men, the condom might just be too large and slip off. Who's fault is that?

Of course, a woman could put a tiny hole into the condom to achieve her goal, without the man knowing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Any word yet over whether they will also make it illegal for Party A to discontinue contraception before The Act without giving prior notice to Party B? Wouldn't that knowledge (the the lack thereof) constitute an element towards Consent for The Act?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Learned a new word. I really wonder how these clown lawmakers want to police this law??

The same way all policed laws are policed - the police will charge offenders with the crime after they have committed it when they have evidence the crime was committed. Literally how policing works.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

you dont get in bed with people who you cant trust to not do "stealthing" to you. .

But what if you do trust them, but they were sociopathic liars? Is it your fault as the victim for not having very good judgment of people? And does that absolve the criminal of responsibility, because it's the victims' fault for being too trusting?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What happens if it accidentally slips off?

Well, when that happens, you learn that you shouldn't have bought the Magnums - they're for the big boys.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Progressives used to want people out of your bedroom. Now they want to micro-manage people’s sexual activities.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, when that happens, you learn that you shouldn't have bought the Magnums - they're for the big boys.

Or Newsom sends you to prison. Boys, be sure you know your girl very very well. The free love hookup scene could land you in the county lockup. And there is plenty of room since the big city Progressive prosecutors aren’t going after thief’s and illegal aliens.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I am sorry for those guys. Some of us can barely fit it over the tip.

Stop confusing cm and in. ]/s

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and how is this is a current priority?

Constituent pressure to pass such a law. It is on people's minds enough for them to comment and thus legislators to feel compelled to do something.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or Newsom sends you to prison. Boys, be sure you know your girl very very well. The free love hookup scene could land you in the county lockup. And there is plenty of room since the big city Progressive prosecutors aren’t going after thief’s and illegal aliens.

Save the sarcasm please. There have been lawsuits when stealthing resulted in the plaintiff contracting a disease or becoming pregnant. The law was not clear on the matter making these difficult cases to win in civil court. This makes such lawsuits easier to win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Progressives used to want people out of your bedroom. Now they want to micro-manage people’s sexual activities.

Progressives wanting women to not have men push non-consenting women to have some protection - talk about pathetic, disgusting people. How DARE they not think that women should have no protections on this issue like unprogressives do. Frankly, there isn't a lower class of humans that these people who want to protect women from non-consenting unprotected sex. Right?!

 

...right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites