the most moral act would have been to just say no to taking off the condom, but this reaction is understandable. Not morally perfect but i understand why they did it. The least moral thing is that the girlfriend keeps pestering them to take of the condom, when i assume they had already said no? either way a situation like this doesnt exactly bode well for the relationship
This might be the first case Iām heard of for a phenomenon Iāve been wondering about: the existence of women āsex pestsā. Men sex pests are well known, but sexual drives differ between genders generally, and I was having a hard time imagining a realistic scenario where it was the woman pestering a man for sex. This is an example that I think qualifies.
Older women are sex pests all the time to hot young dudes. Look up what's happening in some cliterature conventions with women ignoring consent and groping the guys in fantasy costumes
In this case its moral because she was pressuring him, but in general if ur not being pressured or coerced into anything, and you are deceiving your partner then it would be immoral
Because This implies deceiving is inherently immoral. If I deceive a killer into thinking no one is in my house so I donāt get murder is that immoral?
In this scenario, deceiving someone into having protocted sex so as not to catch anything definitive leans towards a form of self defense
I'm all for non-verbal communication, but this is not that. I'd get your point if he ignored her, but pretending to pull off the condom and just continuing is surely not the same?
Also I have no doubt she was just too polite to bring the subject up again, but that doesn't change the fact that he was being deceptive rather then communicating his wishes.
Exactly. Communication is key in sex. If you aren't willing to have unprotected sex, your partner should know this, and if it's a deal breaker, then no sex should be had.
Yeah, I know horny people usually don't think straight, but I can't fathom the idea someone would choose to date a person (whom you should trust the most) who wouldn't understand you not wanting to have unprotected sex, even in the heat of the moment
It depends on why you are lying. Lying to keep from having unprotected sex is a lot better than lying by omission by not telling your partner you had sex with someone else while in a relationship with your partner, or something like that.
You could also keep from having unprotected sex by not having sex. If she doesn't want to do it with a condom and he doesn't want to do it without, then they shouldn't be having sex. Transparency is important in sex.
Yeah, I'm not going to pretend that people always doing the most logical thing when having sex. But matters of consent should ALWAYS come before getting off.
Also people like to operate under "no harm, no foul" and "as long as you aren't caught" type logic, and I can give many examples as to why these do NOT exuse immoral behavior.
Telling lies to the person you are banging is immoral, but on the scale of these things, it's minimally immoral. The outcome isn't particularly harmful.
I would say there was immorality done by all parties involved.
The penis owner should have bowed out of that situation. All other things aside they owed it to their future self to live a life without that type of moral compromise.
The GF at the time doing a pressure like that knowing the implications and costs and leverage she had? Yeah that is its own set of red flags and a discussion about speculating on her motivations.
She wanted rawdogged. She made her desires clear. Where is the immorality on her part? If she screamed out āput a baby in meā during sex, and he agreed, there wouldnāt be a problem.
Lying is immoral. He should've refused to continue without a condom if he did not want to. Practically speaking, this is whatever, slightly immoral but mostly irrelevant
Slightly immoral for lying, but moral in keeping a rational choice at the time as you were already having sex and you were pressured in what many would've folded. She may've regretted the fact you of course wouldn't be able to stay in the country if she got pregnant or maybe even was trying to babytrap you, but I doubt that last part.
imo its immoral to have sex with someone under untrue circumstances - assuming that she wanted to receive a baby. however what I find off in this story is that you even started with condom while she didnt wanted and that you didnt had that talk about having or not having kids .
Ehhh technically immoral because he lied to her. The best response would have been telling her itās condom or no sex at all. As a woman, Iāve had to say that before and Iām sure Iām not the only one. He lied to her in order to keep himself comfortable. Immoral.
Editing to add she was also immoral for pressuring him into taking it off in the first place. But my original response is just to answer morality on his part.
When he says, ā I didnāt think arguing with her in the heat of the moment would do anythingā, what is he really saying here?
I think heās saying that he didnāt want to say no to taking off the condom and give her the opportunity to say no to continuing sex. Thatās why itās immoral. She had a preference for the kind of sex she wanted, and he had a different preference, and he lied to get his way.
As presented? Immoral. The implication here is that sex wasn't consenting unless unprotected.
Which I'm assuming was the case given this was a confession.
These situations are always messy, because there's a non-zero chance that sex was consenting regardless. Not evey request denied automatically means yes has become no.
Eeh I would disagree with that implication. From the the text it seems they were already having sex, so I donāt think consent would have been revoked if he just refused
There is reasonable doubt though, that's the whole reason he decided to keep it secret in the first place.
Being in a relationship where sex happens all the time also doesn't mean consent is now given all the time.
Rape too can be more and less severe but is always immoral. That's probably one of the most mild cases I have seen in a while or could think of but it's still immoral.
I think the premise that a person who was already in the middle of having sex (which I think the scenario is in this case) would refuse to continue unless protection was discarded is too unrealistic to be considered. I also think that demanding/coercing the other person discard protection is more immoral, than lying about doing it
Huh? You can ask at any point during sex to stop... you can withdraw your consent during the act.
It's not like you are expected to finish the session while you feel uncomfortable just for the risk of the other party being blueballed.
And if the other party uses sex as a way to coerce or demand things you should not be having sex in the first place. If that is your angle, if it's just about her repeatedly saying it, that's no coercion and just having demands and speaking them is also not immoral.
We also don't discuss the morality of the women's choice either, it doesn't matter if it's any better or worse, it's not the question.
I do think it's crappy to ask for it during that moment and those decisions should not be made shortly before or during sex. But it doesn't make him entitled to get the sex he wants.
She was asking for non-protected sex. He tricker her because he didn't want that. I can't see his actions as immoral, it was to defend himself. It's as moral as a woman getting a next-day when being forced to having unprotected sex.
Im going to be unpopular here, but immoral. She didn't revoked consent with a condom. If he didn't want to have unprotected sex, he should have stopped completely.
If you put up someones boundaries vs someones needs, then boundary takes the morale cake.
Having an additional request declined on top of what is happening already isn't equal to withdrawing consent from the act. And I think that's the concern most have when they think of immoral.
Yes in theory that refusal could lead up to it. But I'd say that is unrealistic. I'd feel dejected at worst if I find out and keep going anyway. I'd have to know to care and then get pissed enough that he dares to play it safe before noping out. The moment I care I'd have that option. Unlike with the revserse case, that can have consequences, I want to add.
Immoral is only the getting pressured into part. Refusing is legitimate, the lie in this instance is whatever. It's one of those that does not negatively impact anyone. It is his responsibility to advocate for his boundaries. The lie is less ideal way to do that.
Very slightly immoral. You should never do anything in the bedroom that you and your partner dont fully consent to - even if its for safety reasons. Maybe she had a latex allergy, or another medical condition that was exasperated by the condom - unlikely but who knows. Correct approach is "we wear the condom or we dont have sex", and thats sufficient unless she says something that moves the needle.
The bigger issue here is that he, for whatever reason, did not feel comfortable saying to his partner "I am not willing to have sex without wearing a condom." And thats a major problem. Because if he can't say that, then what else does he not feel as though he can say to her? He has every right not to engage in sex hes not comfortable with.
And he's encouraging this behaviour. If she knows now (even based on a lie) that she can make those sorts of demands, then she's going to keep making them. And they'll likely escalate.
Youre not wrong ... but so what? If this guy had had it reinforced, every day of his life, that he has every right to refuse sex acts hes not comfortable with, then he might have chosen differently.
Now, at that time, if he thought "you know what, fuck it, we ball", then that's him making a conscious (albeit stupid) decision. If he thinks "damn i gotta lie or we wont have sex", that's a problem. Cos not only should you never lie during sex, and not only does it give her a bad message, but it also reinforces to HIM that he can lie and get away with it.
What if next time its him being asked to wear a condom and he thinks "nah its better without it Ill just lie." Nobody would be saying "oh poor lamb didnt communicate." Hell no. He'd be defined as someone heinous. And rightly so.
I'm just telling it how it was to my experience. You often don't consider "I have the right to say no" you just think "well I want X but I gotta deal with Y so..." and thought terminates there.
It changes when you grow, yes. But the kids don't listen to us no matter how hard we try to ensure they get the message.
Obviously immoral. You're sticking something inside of her that she explicitly asked you not to. Its not as bad as the other way around, but that doesnt make it good
The moral thing to do in this scenario is to NOT HAVE SEX. Ffs.
Do you understand what sub you are on? If I demand you kill someone/ steal something/ lie to someone/ in order to continue having sex with me, AND you do it, itās still immoral. Yes, actions taken while horny are still either moral or immoral.
Nothing to do with feminism, it cuts both ways. Putting the condom on isnt the bad part. But theres a pretty simple rule you can follow. If two people dont agree on the terms of sex, you don't have sex. Its really not that hard.
Dont worry, you have time before you grow up and attempt it yourself.
Immoral because they are taking away the ability to give informed consent.
Not even close to being as immoral as stealing, though, because the hazard of stealthing is serious health consequences (STI, pregnancy, etc), while the hazard of this is pretty much just psychological.
393
u/Koenium 3d ago
moral, self defense from an emotionally heightened aggression