fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted March 8, 2014 I liked this story. I had it all set up ready ready to paste on cerb lol. It does set a good precedent, but I also wonder can this be used against women who 'take away consent' from men who are told the woman is on birth control and/or pinpricks condoms to get pregnant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
qwertyaccount 15793 Report post Posted March 8, 2014 Great story, thank you for posting it! I also wonder can this be used against women who 'take away consent' from men who are told the woman is on birth control and/or pinpricks condoms to get pregnant. No, men don't have the same rights as women. For instance, if a woman pulls your used condom out of the trash and inseminates herself with the man juice contained therein, you'd still be on the hook for child support because that would be in the best interests of the child. Ladies - please don't beat me up too badly!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcguy42 38594 Report post Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) I liked this story. I had it all set up ready ready to paste on cerb lol. It does set a good precedent, but I also wonder can this be used against women who 'take away consent' from men who are told the woman is on birth control and/or pinpricks condoms to get pregnant. I am not a lawyer but IMHO this ruling cannot be used against a woman who tricks someone into impregnating her. The type of fraud required to rise to the level of sexual assault requires the possibility of significant physical harm. There is no possibility of physical harm to the gentleman. Financial harm, perhaps, but this would play out in a different court. I stand corrected. The possible exposure to STDs does present the risk of significant physical harm to the gentleman. Thanks to Kathryn for reminding me that there is more than the possible pregnancy in play here. Edited March 8, 2014 by bcguy42 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Bardot 99339 Report post Posted March 8, 2014 No, men don't have the same rights as women. For instance, if a woman pulls your used condom out of the trash and inseminates herself with the man juice contained therein, you'd still be on the hook for child support because that would be in the best interests of the child. Ladies - please don't beat me up too badly!!! From my understanding, the ruling was based on the fact that the woman consented to protected sex. Poking a hole in the condom means that the woman was then exposed to bodily fluids, hence the charge of exposure to bodily harm. A different scenario from the one you proposed, which would be handled differently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank7 3939 Report post Posted March 8, 2014 Similarly, if a woman poked holes in a condom because she wanted to become pregnant, she would be guilty of sexual assault, because of the risk of STD transmission that she exposes her partner to. That's the big point of the law. Making sure you don't get exposed to STD risk without your consent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
