Not a lawyer, just a dumbfuck, but also not so sure about this interpretation.
Its only illegal if you take it off then proceed to fuck the keyholder without consent.
Otherwise its like taking the condom off and walking out of the room, which I have to imagine is legal.
taking the condom off and walking out of the room
ah yes, like the one time I ragequit sex
Oh yeah no I'm not saying that's normal fucking behavior (heh), its just not criminal lol.
Got tired of losing in the first 30 seconds?
Was it a ranked match? I hear you can get banned for this quite easily.
its like taking the condom off and walking out of the room, which I have to imagine is legal.
Lmao. Beleive it or not; straight to jail.
We take the concept of consent to some very strange places
This is not uncommon, that laws are written not considering all nuances, so a generally innocent thing is made illegal.
The primary protection for this is prosecutorial discretion which is to say the DA can choose not to take such cases. Also the police have to be willing to enforce and book instances (they're usually happy to) and gubernatorial positions like the mayor or governor can command law enforcement not to enforce a specific law (which sometimes they'll obey).
This often comes up in undocumented immigrant cases in which there are communities with a lot of overstayed visas, or while cannibis was in a grey zone of being locally accepted while nationally scheduled.
It's also why tweens weren't gathered up for making a Facebook account while under thirteen years, even though that violated the CFAA, a federal crime punishable by up to 25 years. We don't really want to put little girls in federal prison.
This is a problem when some official would like you to disappear into the penal system, say because he covets your land or your livestock or your spouse. Then your chastity cage may become a liability.
Prosecutorial discretion is a big problem really. It's what allows laws to be applied unequally, why black people are prosecuted way more than white people, and, as you mention, provides justification to jail anyone at any time because you ARE violating some law every day, almost certainly.
If prosecutorial discretion did not exist, if agents of the law were required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law, it would require the entire legal system to be restructured in a more precise way, and would have far less room for racial, sexual, and class discrimination as well as far less capacity to be weaponized against enemies of those in power.
Well that'd require (among other things) a simplified set of laws, clear structure, with the goal of adhering to the spirit, not the letter of the law. The result can be expected to be faster trials, reduced lawyer workloads, and all the reduction in costs that come with that.
Pssh, who wants that?
I'd go the other way, adhering very strictly to the letter of the law without the tiniest bit of wiggle room or interpretation of anything as nebulous as the 'spirit' of the law.
Trouble being that natural languages that people use to converse are ill suited for that level of precision and detail. I've thought that perhaps a constructed language, something between a language and programming code may be a better way to write laws.
Output still would have to be interpreted by us, if I'm understanding you correctly. Laws become innumerable, which is already a problem; how many paralegals do professional lawyers actually need at this point?
Alabama has a law on the books banning dominoes on Sundays. Every state and even the federal govt has laws in place which can be abused, even if only until a judge prevails. "One can beat the rap, but not the ride"... How about beating the ride, too?
"required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law", taken literally, requires prosecutors to prosecute everyone for every crime all the time. After all, you don't know what might turn up in discovery, anything could potentially have happened! Obviously, there has to be some judgement call made, where there's just not enough evidence to prosecute me for drunk driving even though I stopped an inch past the stop sign. Ultimately, that's just prosecutorial discretion again, and while it could be reformed and limited somewhat, it will always exist and be abused.
The sort of thing well-educated white liberals believe because they learned it in university, and never found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Did you read the entire comment?
Yes? I'm not arguing with them.
Which part?
That prosecutorial discretion is a good idea. I'm not implying that you do.
Oh yeah. It's horrible, and puts way too much power in the hands of DAs and AGs. Also it lets our legislators create lazy law on the assumption the right people will be spared, and the wrong people (e.g. poor and minorities) will become prison fodder.
I'd rather we had iron-clad difficult to re-interpret laws for which enforcement was obligatory. Then every miscarriage of justice (e.g. tweens in juvie for violating social media TOS) would be a call to fix the problem with aggressive legislative revision.
Notes for the next iteration of the United States, I suppose.
My boyfriend and I are moving to Washington... no reason...
Oh fuck, I read about this in The Stranger (local independent Seattle newspaper) a while ago. It talked about stealthing and how it is a big problem. Overall a good bill IMO.
Stealthing
Thank you, I have changed it
Can't prove shit. After the fact there is no way to discern between consent revoked after approval and any other scenario.
Yeah, is it really sexual assault if you can do a plausible deniability? Good point! /s
The unfortunate truth is no, at least not legally, and regret with consent is not assault.
Let me get this straight:
If a man removes a condom mid-sex, against his partner's wishes, and continues to have sex with her until his finishes inside her, you believe the issue here is her "regret" for having sex with a man that would violate her sexual boundaries, and not the fact that a man forced a woman to have sex with him in a way she did not consent to, that could have extraordinary negative consequences for her?
Fuck off with that sexist victim-blaming bullshit. Consent is fundamental to sex. Sex without consent is rape.
And don't argue that consent was withdrawn after-the-fact. Consent was granted on the condition that a condom be worn. The moment you insert your bare cock into her, you're fucking raping her.
I'm sorry I have to spell this out for you so graphically, but someone needs to explain consent to you since your parents never evidently never did.
No, my issue is that adult literacy is like 20%.
Once you consent, condom on, you are now in a situation where whatever happens next is virtually impossible to prove, and proof is required to convict. All cases of withdrawn consent leading to an illegal act for any reason have a very high probability of being unable to be prosecuted due to being indistinguishable from a withdrawn consent compliance scenario or a full consent regret scenario, both are legal.
The mere fact that initial consent put you into a sexual position means that either party can claim that consent was given at the time which is how you ended up in that situation to begin with... It becomes he said she said, which is a loss.
Yeah. It's a big, painful, complicated, disgusting problem, where law enforcement is a jackhammer, and the crime is a malfunctioning pocketwatch.
In my opinion, in order to make the situation equally unfair and dangerous for everybody, the law should be unfair and straight up just be biased in favour of the party in most statistical danger and least control (the penetrated party).
But that's the "best we can do, given an impossible situation" kind of solution, because the real solution is to deal with society's problems that cause the situation. Preventative rather than reparative treatment. Giving people what they need to be well, rather than depriving and punishing them as much as possible to keep them obedient.
And that goes against what our society is built around đ
evil grins still sure you want to be in 'permanent' chastity?~ >;3
my keys D:
You mean my keys ;p
you're right.. heh >.<
I'm reminded of the time I was young as hell playing Quake online and said "cocked, locked and ready to rock" and someone replied "Cocks shouldn't be locked up! Cocks should be free!"
Not a lawyer, just a dumbfuck, but also not so sure about this interpretation.
Its only illegal if you take it off then proceed to fuck the keyholder without consent.
Otherwise its like taking the condom off and walking out of the room, which I have to imagine is legal.
ah yes, like the one time I ragequit sex
Oh yeah no I'm not saying that's normal fucking behavior (heh), its just not criminal lol.
Got tired of losing in the first 30 seconds?
Was it a ranked match? I hear you can get banned for this quite easily.
Lmao. Beleive it or not; straight to jail.
We take the concept of consent to some very strange places
This is not uncommon, that laws are written not considering all nuances, so a generally innocent thing is made illegal.
The primary protection for this is prosecutorial discretion which is to say the DA can choose not to take such cases. Also the police have to be willing to enforce and book instances (they're usually happy to) and gubernatorial positions like the mayor or governor can command law enforcement not to enforce a specific law (which sometimes they'll obey).
This often comes up in undocumented immigrant cases in which there are communities with a lot of overstayed visas, or while cannibis was in a grey zone of being locally accepted while nationally scheduled.
It's also why tweens weren't gathered up for making a Facebook account while under thirteen years, even though that violated the CFAA, a federal crime punishable by up to 25 years. We don't really want to put little girls in federal prison.
This is a problem when some official would like you to disappear into the penal system, say because he covets your land or your livestock or your spouse. Then your chastity cage may become a liability.
Prosecutorial discretion is a big problem really. It's what allows laws to be applied unequally, why black people are prosecuted way more than white people, and, as you mention, provides justification to jail anyone at any time because you ARE violating some law every day, almost certainly.
If prosecutorial discretion did not exist, if agents of the law were required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law, it would require the entire legal system to be restructured in a more precise way, and would have far less room for racial, sexual, and class discrimination as well as far less capacity to be weaponized against enemies of those in power.
Well that'd require (among other things) a simplified set of laws, clear structure, with the goal of adhering to the spirit, not the letter of the law. The result can be expected to be faster trials, reduced lawyer workloads, and all the reduction in costs that come with that.
Pssh, who wants that?
I'd go the other way, adhering very strictly to the letter of the law without the tiniest bit of wiggle room or interpretation of anything as nebulous as the 'spirit' of the law.
Trouble being that natural languages that people use to converse are ill suited for that level of precision and detail. I've thought that perhaps a constructed language, something between a language and programming code may be a better way to write laws.
Output still would have to be interpreted by us, if I'm understanding you correctly. Laws become innumerable, which is already a problem; how many paralegals do professional lawyers actually need at this point?
Alabama has a law on the books banning dominoes on Sundays. Every state and even the federal govt has laws in place which can be abused, even if only until a judge prevails. "One can beat the rap, but not the ride"... How about beating the ride, too?
"required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law", taken literally, requires prosecutors to prosecute everyone for every crime all the time. After all, you don't know what might turn up in discovery, anything could potentially have happened! Obviously, there has to be some judgement call made, where there's just not enough evidence to prosecute me for drunk driving even though I stopped an inch past the stop sign. Ultimately, that's just prosecutorial discretion again, and while it could be reformed and limited somewhat, it will always exist and be abused.
The sort of thing well-educated white liberals believe because they learned it in university, and never found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Did you read the entire comment?
Yes? I'm not arguing with them.
Which part?
That prosecutorial discretion is a good idea. I'm not implying that you do.
Oh yeah. It's horrible, and puts way too much power in the hands of DAs and AGs. Also it lets our legislators create lazy law on the assumption the right people will be spared, and the wrong people (e.g. poor and minorities) will become prison fodder.
I'd rather we had iron-clad difficult to re-interpret laws for which enforcement was obligatory. Then every miscarriage of justice (e.g. tweens in juvie for violating social media TOS) would be a call to fix the problem with aggressive legislative revision.
Notes for the next iteration of the United States, I suppose.
My boyfriend and I are moving to Washington... no reason...
Oh fuck, I read about this in The Stranger (local independent Seattle newspaper) a while ago. It talked about stealthing and how it is a big problem. Overall a good bill IMO.
Stealthing
Thank you, I have changed it
Can't prove shit. After the fact there is no way to discern between consent revoked after approval and any other scenario.
Yeah, is it really sexual assault if you can do a plausible deniability? Good point! /s
The unfortunate truth is no, at least not legally, and regret with consent is not assault.
Let me get this straight:
If a man removes a condom mid-sex, against his partner's wishes, and continues to have sex with her until his finishes inside her, you believe the issue here is her "regret" for having sex with a man that would violate her sexual boundaries, and not the fact that a man forced a woman to have sex with him in a way she did not consent to, that could have extraordinary negative consequences for her?
Fuck off with that sexist victim-blaming bullshit. Consent is fundamental to sex. Sex without consent is rape.
And don't argue that consent was withdrawn after-the-fact. Consent was granted on the condition that a condom be worn. The moment you insert your bare cock into her, you're fucking raping her.
I'm sorry I have to spell this out for you so graphically, but someone needs to explain consent to you since your parents never evidently never did.
No, my issue is that adult literacy is like 20%. Once you consent, condom on, you are now in a situation where whatever happens next is virtually impossible to prove, and proof is required to convict. All cases of withdrawn consent leading to an illegal act for any reason have a very high probability of being unable to be prosecuted due to being indistinguishable from a withdrawn consent compliance scenario or a full consent regret scenario, both are legal. The mere fact that initial consent put you into a sexual position means that either party can claim that consent was given at the time which is how you ended up in that situation to begin with... It becomes he said she said, which is a loss.
Yeah. It's a big, painful, complicated, disgusting problem, where law enforcement is a jackhammer, and the crime is a malfunctioning pocketwatch.
In my opinion, in order to make the situation equally unfair and dangerous for everybody, the law should be unfair and straight up just be biased in favour of the party in most statistical danger and least control (the penetrated party).
But that's the "best we can do, given an impossible situation" kind of solution, because the real solution is to deal with society's problems that cause the situation. Preventative rather than reparative treatment. Giving people what they need to be well, rather than depriving and punishing them as much as possible to keep them obedient.
And that goes against what our society is built around đ
evil grins still sure you want to be in 'permanent' chastity?~ >;3
my keys D:You mean my keys ;p
you're right.. heh >.<
I'm reminded of the time I was young as hell playing Quake online and said "cocked, locked and ready to rock" and someone replied "Cocks shouldn't be locked up! Cocks should be free!"
Doms stay winning đ
washington, here come the transes >:)
(edit: accidental formatting)