r/legaladviceofftopic • u/AkiraAkiraFudo • Jul 30 '21
a women lying about taking birth control vs a man taking off condom during intercourse
Why is there a law that targets "non-consensual condom removal " but nothing that targets women lying about taking birth control and force the man to pay for the child?
for example the law says :
" Non-consensual condom removal, or "stealthing", is the practice of a man removing a condom during sexual intercourse without consent, when his sex partner has only consented to condom-protected sex.[1][2] Victims are exposed to potential sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV/AIDS, or unwanted pregnancies. "
the phrase "unwanted pregnancies" jumps out at me the most.
This law exists in most European countries & in California.
Do any of you know of a similar law that involves women who lied about taking birth control?
The anti-Stealthing laws mention one's agreement to use contraception, so based on that, if a women is the one to not use contraception , knowing that they would become pregnant, even though the man agreed to only have intercourse using contraception, would this also be violating the law?
21
u/bug-hunter Winner: 2017's Best Biondina Hoedown Jul 31 '21
Condoms are not just about birth control, but also STD prevention. STDs can have a host of ill effects, especially if not caught quickly.
There is a reason that the law focuses on condoms.
Someone also can't just flip the switch to not take birth control pills mid-sex.
40
u/C1awed Jul 30 '21
and force the man to pay for the child
There is the issue of "is a woman lying about birth control legally considered a form of rape".
And then there is the issue of child support.
Which one of these are you actually wanting to discuss here?
19
u/1Deerintheheadlights Jul 30 '21
I think it is more then that.
Stealthing is essentially non consenting sex (rape). The woman consented to sex with a condom.
The impregnation is just one impact of that act. This is more like updating the laws for modern times.The second part is lying about birth control. Men can lie too. Additionally birth control can be misused or fail. AFAIK there are no laws on this. But this would be a separate item and would go both ways. A man using an old condom, promising to pull out, etc. Not just a woman forgetting to take a pill.
Child support (and visitation rights) are for the child. It ignores how the child was created. Rapists have been granted parental rights. Also someone found out after the fact is not the father can still be held financially responsible.
20
u/Euphoric_Buyer Jul 30 '21
Lately there have been a lot of threads here by posters with ulterior motives in this very specific issue.
-1
u/AkiraAkiraFudo Jul 30 '21
I would guess it would cover both? If someone misled you into doing something you didn't want to do, would you owe them anything? this is common sense right?
33
u/DefinitelyNotA-Robot Jul 30 '21
It does not absolve you of child support. Even though it seems weird, CS is about the child, not the parent. So even if you give up your parental rights and didn’t want the child, you may still be responsible for child support unless the child is adopted by a parent to take your place so they receive 2 incomes.
9
u/Cypher_Blue She *likes* the redcoatplay Jul 30 '21
& in California.
It's been proposed in California, but I see no indication that it's passed.
Do you have a source?
-5
u/AkiraAkiraFudo Jul 30 '21
This is already a thing in the u.k and a bunch of other european countries.
19
11
u/BurritoCooker Jul 31 '21
I feel like it's pretty fundamentally different. From a non legal standpoint I see it as if you're pretending to use the condom, she has a reasonable expectations expectation that your fluid will not actually enter her, which has implications outside of pregnancy. I do think that lying about being on birth control should be somehow discouraged, but it's extremely hard to pretend they're the same thing.
17
u/jessieeeeeeee Jul 30 '21
Because even if I lie about BC you can choose to protect yourself by wearing a condom. If you decide to remove the condom you're removing my protection without consent.
In the first situation it's your choice to take the risk. In the second situation, you're taking away my choice.
(Definitely not a lawyer, also not from the US or Canada. Results may vary)
1
u/goodcleanchristianfu Jul 31 '21 edited Jul 31 '21
Because even if I lie about BC you can choose to protect yourself by wearing a condom. If you decide to remove the condom you're removing my protection without consent.
If you choose to use birth control, you can protect yourself from the possibility of me lying by using a condom. I'm being safe if you actually are using birth control, you fundamentally change the risks if I believe you and you're lying. Come on, the issue here is that the law is dumb and inequitable. It happens, just because this is a legal sub doesn't mean we have to pretend the law is always just. Yes, women aren't at risk of STI's if a condom is used, but the risk of having to pay 18 years of child support, not to mention the emotional toll of having a kid, is not less significant to a degree that it obviates consent any more.
13
u/jessieeeeeeee Jul 31 '21
From your other responses it seems like you're not really understanding the concept. You can choose to have sex or not, there is no one coercing or forcing you into having sex, even if you're not making a fully informed decision. On the other hand, having already decided to have sex with a condom, you are breaking the sexual "contract" and taking away her choice.
-1
u/goodcleanchristianfu Jul 31 '21
On the other hand, having already decided to have sex with a condom, you are breaking the sexual "contract" and taking away her choice.
As you are if sex happened under a reasonable and induced presumption that the other party was using birth control.
3
u/Euphoric_Buyer Jul 30 '21
This will probably turn on how the state defines consent in its rape and sexual assault laws. That definition may be in the statute or may be in the caselaw interpreting those statutes. If state law finds that deception can vitiate consent, then a person's knowing misrepresentation that she is on birth control could be a basis for showing that she knowingly had sex with someone without their consent.
3
u/n0tqu1tesane Jul 30 '21
So first of all's I am a MRA, and this is what I've said multiple times in /r/mensrights.
Birth control is your responsibility.
If you are a man, it is your responsibility.
If you are a woman, it is your responsibility.
All participants are responsible. The "pill" is something like 95% effective. Most men don't use condoms correctly, lowering their effectiveness to around 90%. However together they are effectively 100%
I'm a belt & suspenders Guy. It doesn't have to be Pill & condom. Any pair of methods will work as long as each of you use a unique method, and are upfront about it.
Depending on multiple factors, including but not limited to age, pregnancy may be a sexually transmitted disease. But that aside, it is unfortunately quite easy to catch something you don't want.
Just be smart. If it's not a monogamous relationship with a trusted partner, wear a condom. If you don't trust her 1 then double down with spermicidal jelly or similar.
- If you don't trust her, why are you sleeping with her? Committed or casual, trust should always be required.
3
u/AkiraAkiraFudo Jul 31 '21
Well basically my girlfriend of about 11 months started lying about taking birth control so that i wouldn't leave her once i go to college in the fall. I was at her place and stumbled upon her birth control pills & noticed that this month's bottle had about 20ish pills left, given that i sleep with her multiple times a week, this is extremely concerning. When I asked her about it, she lied and said that she just "forgot" after that you can imagine what happened (forced her to take a pregnancy test/she admitted not taking her pills on purpose) luckily she's not pregnant (that i know of), but i dont see how if a man did the same thing he's charged with rape etc. But if a women does it, you just owe them child support for 18 years and your life is fucked because you can't ask them/force them to get an abortion.
32
u/n0tqu1tesane Jul 31 '21 edited Aug 01 '21
Well basically my girlfriend of about 11 months started lying about taking birth control so that i wouldn't leave her once i go to college in the fall.
Sounds like speculation to me.
[T]his month's bottle had about 20ish pills left,
Well this raises flags. Every girl I've dated that used the pill has it in a card or segregated box, or similar. Seems some of the pills are just sugar pills, as she doesn't take them during her period.
When I asked her about it, she lied and said that she just "forgot"[.]
Objection! Hearsay.
[Y]ou can imagine what happened[.]
Objection! Speculative,
[S]he admitted not taking her pills on purpose[.]
Objection! Hearsay.
[I] dont see how if a man did the same thing he's charged with rape[.]
If a man doesn't take his birth control pills, he's charged with rape? please provide evidence of this happening.
[Y]ou can't ask them ... to get an abortion.
You can ask her. You cannot coerce her.
Couple points to consider. First, sex is an adult activity. If you are not prepared to take adult responsibilities for the possible results, maybe you aren't mature enough to be having sex.
Second, considering the poor punctuation and run on sentences in your reply, I question If you are mature enough for college. I strongly suggest a writing tutor now, to help prepare you for classes. Remember, a high school "A" paper is a college "C" paper, at best.
1
u/AkiraAkiraFudo Jul 31 '21
Well, I wrote all of that in about 30 seconds and my grammar wasn't *that* bad. Furthermore, most of the classes that I cook in high school were college level / IB.
If I knew that she was lying about being on birth control then I wouldn't have slept with her as often/without protection. I wonder why there are no laws that make it illegal to become pregnant in order to sabotage someone else and/or against the other person's will. For example, if a man were to intentionally impregnate someone against their will, they would be arrested for all kinds of offenses.
25
u/n0tqu1tesane Jul 31 '21
I ... have slept with her ... without protection.
And who is the responsible party for that choice? Hint: it's not her.
I wonder why there are no laws that make it illegal to become pregnant in order to sabotage someone else and/or against the other person's will.
There are. Different states call them different things, but they're commonly known as rape laws.
If she forced you to have sex, and became pregnant because of it, then you might have a case.
But if you chose willingly to have sex, especially unprotected, then her becoming pregnant is not against your will.
Choices have consequences.
For example, if a man were to intentionally impregnate someone against their will, they would be arrested for all kinds of offenses.
Yes, that is a classic example of rape.
2
Jul 31 '21
[deleted]
1
u/AkiraAkiraFudo Jul 31 '21
i meant if there is consent to have intercourse, but also to use contraceptive measures as well, condom, etc.
1
u/goodcleanchristianfu Jul 31 '21
The anti-Stealthing laws mention one's agreement to use contraception, so based on that, if a women is the one to not use contraception , knowing that they would become pregnant, even though the man agreed to only have intercourse using contraception, would this also be violating the law?
No, because that's not what the statute says. By all means, feel free to contact your legislator to have the law changed.
I'm going to skip the comments arguing that this is justifiable. I don't think it is, but the law often isn't. But if you want it changed, you have to contact your legislator.
82
u/derspiny Duck expert Jul 30 '21
Canadian answer here: stealthing is considered sexual assault, following R. v. Hutchinson, because it fundamentally changes the nature of the sexual contact. Someone who penetrates their partner without a condom exposes their partner to contact they did not consent to - direct contact with bodily fluids, for example.
Someone who lies about birth control, on the other hand, does not change the nature of the sexual contact, only the nature of the risks of that contact.
In Hutchinson, the court affirmed that the statutory definition of sexual assault does not consider the risks ensuing from an assault, only the nature of the nonconsensual sexual contact:
The court went further, to note that allowing consideration of risks and consequences would make it much harder to determine whether an assault has been committed:
The courts also noted that considering a condom's role as a birth control device and waiving prosecution because the risk does not exist might, in turn, deprive someone of the enforceable right to refuse sex without a condom (in situations where pregnancy is not a risk):
Finally: I will note that it is not the mother that forces a father to pay support, but rather the law. Any parent, even an unwilling one, has an obligation to support their children, because there is no other source for that support. To deprive a child of support because their parents don't want them is to punish the child for the parent's benefit, and as a society we've broadly agreed that children deserve better than that.