(Photo Credits: Alena TS from Shutterstock)
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 on Friday that stealthing could lead to a sexual assault conviction.
Stealthing is defined as non-consensual condom removal, it occurs when you only agreed to have condom-protected sex but then your sex partner proceeded to remove the condom he had promised to wear so he could cum inside you without your knowledge and consent.
According to CBC, the decision could “set important legal precedent on consent and sexual assault.”
“Sex with and without a condom are fundamentally and qualitatively distinct forms of physical touching,” Justice Sheilah Martin wrote in the majority decision.
“A complainant who consents to sex on the condition that their partner wear a condom does not consent to sex without a condom.” She added, “There is no agreement to the physical act of intercourse without a condom.” Read the ruling in full here.
In Canada, “sexual assault requires proof of a lack of consent to a particular sexual activity,” Reuters reports.
Meanwhile, Isabel Grant, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law, expressed in an interview with CBC that she “hopes the reasoning behind the court’s decision will be heard beyond the legal community.” Grant said, “I hope that that message plays an educative role for people trying to understand what is consensual and what is non-consensual.”
Stealthing is not just about a breach of trust. It is a dangerous act that could put your health at risk with diseases such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). And in the case of women: unwanted pregnancies.
Around the world, only Australian Capital Territory and California have criminalized stealthing so far. Though currently, there are a handful of countries where people are convicted for stealthing in spite of the lack of specific laws on said practice namely the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Germany.
Read more about this story here.
The “General Public” of Canada has to be told that an “Unwrapped Penis” can be a “Lethal Weapon”?
Is it not sufficiently logical enough for intelligent “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” to take the hint, be proactive, and wear a condom?
Is not the History of “Socially Transmitted Diseases” and “Transmissions” not already known and understood by the masses?
Hence, The Courts are forced to meddle in matters of Morality to enforce the legal ramifications of penetration unwrapped?
A sad commentary on the plight of humanity to become the recipients of legislation to protect its continual existence and well-being !
Thanks to immoral morons who feel that removing a condom and dumping a raw load is acceptable.
A quick check of local profiles on A4A just now revealed 20% listed “Bareback” or “Depends” for “Sexual Practice”. Should still be easy for guys who wish to unload raw to find willing partners. For those guys who do not wish to be unloaded raw into, this law is little guarantee. Proving consent will come down to “he said/he said” (and if anything had ever been said.) Applying the law would also get into just exactly who you’ve had sex and how often with in recent weeks/months. Another “Feel Good/We Did Something!” law that will sit on the books with… Read more »
Exactly, my thoughts and words!
Laws which attempt to legislate “Morality” do not work because they cannot be applied either logically or applicably.
You cannot legislate Morality because you cannot force the Public to subscribe to a particular Mindset and a belief in God is personal not public.
The Liberals refuse to believe this and thus, they continue to pollute the society with dictates…most of which are as quickly forgotten as they were proscribed.
The nanny state ……. coming to a country near you ,,,,, Oh, wait,,,, it’s already here….
Canada has become one big nanny state.
I agree with the courts. It’s sad to see so many HIV positive people wanting to do bareback on this site.
As it should be. I would never consider removing a condom during sex.
A large portion of gay men are sexual predators and other gay men encourage it because of some half baked porn fantasy, which leads to innocent ppl becoming victims. There is nothing respectful about the gay guy “community” any longer.
Sadly, yeah, “predators, looking for victims” can’t tell you how many times I’ve said this about the ‘evil’ of too many gay males.
“And in the case of women: unwanted pregnancies.” Have we not learned that men can get pregnant too?
No, men cannot get pregnant.
Canada.. Another reason to avoid Cuckistan. And just how is this law going to be enforced? The Anglosphere is done
How would they decide who’s telling the truth. The guy that took his condom off and emptied his semen inside the other person will say in court that it was consensus.
What you pointed out is the fallacy that the Courts can legislate Morality!
Hence, the overturn of “Roe vs Wade” and hopefully, other such legislation, fostered by the Liberals who are under the misguided notion that legislating morality is enforceable!
Yeah, it’s pretty laughable, alright, but it’s also pitiful, as there is multiple “fallacies.” This country or the “moral majority” can’t even legislate themselves, otherwise, we wouldn’t be in the multiple messes that we are culturally, humanitarily, economically and civically speaking. As an African American gay male, they really need to stick with the laws ALREADY on the books, instead of putting more laws on the books, that they have no intensions of carrying out or sticking to. I think, if the country were actually “moral,” they wouldn’t be disarming people of their abilities to do for themselves, ’cause it’s… Read more »
Or “Condom? We never discussed one.”
If the Canadian Justice system is anything like the U.S., the courts are going to be a hotbed of malicious law suits and criminal cases. I realize there are those assholes who unwrap; but my concern is for those who “will” be falsely accused. And it will happen. How does one defend themselves? If you play the victim, you’re almost guaranteed victory with or without evidence.
A friend of mines was falsely accused of sexual assault by a female and almost faced 30 years in prison because he rejected her advances. What kept him from being sentence, is when he told the judge he is gay and never wanted nor plan on having sex with females let alone assault one, and the fact she didn’t even know he is gay was clear as day on her face that she was lying and not knowing why he rejected her to begin with. Got her case drown out and she spent 2 years as punishment for trying to… Read more »
My take on this matter is for people ie to start using common sense. It’s not hard to have sex with a guy while at the same time pay close attention to what he is doing. All it takes is one look the minute he withdraws completely from your anus or vagina to see if he’s trying to secretly remove the condom. I always look back when having sex with a guy that withdraws from my bussy, and I’M NOT turning my head back until his penis is completely back inside me with the condom still intact. If I can… Read more »
Can’t use, what you do not possess, lmao, “common sense” it’s not that common, clearly.
One good example would be if the condom removal resulted in contracting an STD.
yes THIS should indeed be a sexual offense, honey, is just like raping the man .. what also should be a sexual offense should be them big billboards that say “non-surgical vasectomy removal”, darling .. if you didn’t want them tadpoles in the first place, ya shouldn’t have to ask for them back a 2nd time, damnit! dem FROGGS got ’em!
I’m one of those men that just might take the law into my own damn hands, if some shithead was caught doing something like to me and he might never ever be found.