SaysWho? Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 Condom use can be a condition of consent in sexual assault cases, Supreme Court rules | Globalnews.ca GLOBALNEWS.CA The court ruled on a British Columbia case in which a complainant told a new sexual partner that she would only have sex with him if he wore a condom. Quote In a 5-4 decision Friday, the top court says that “no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom” in a courtroom. The court has ordered a new trial in a British Columbia case in which a complainant told a new sexual partner, Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick, that she would only have sex with him if he wore a condom. The fact Kirkpatrick used a condom the first time they had sex led the complainant to assume that he was already wearing one when he initiated sex for a second time, she told the court – but he wasn’t, which she said she did not realize until he ejaculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 Yeah "stealthing" is an issue with douchebag assholes, so this ruling makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said: “no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom” Fright's title: Quote "I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom We've been Rileyed! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 That or the article needs copy editing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 I think the topline ruling is pretty obviously correct. The reason it was 5-4 (when Canada's Supreme Court typically rules much more lopsided) is, I think because in this specific case this is what happened: Woman was going to have sex with man, but said only if he wore a condom (which he did) Later, they were going to have sex again, and she didn't express this opinion again explicitly, and he didn't wear a condom (without her knowledge) So the question is: If she's set the standard for condom-wearing once, should it be assumed to stand until revoked? Or does she need to express this each time? The court says that yes, consent for a certain act (and excluding other acts) remains in place until revoked, it does not need to be restated each time. I agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 29, 2022 Author Share Posted July 29, 2022 1 minute ago, Jason said: Fright's title: We've been Rileyed! ??? “no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom” means "I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 @SaysWho? That makes sense, but the title of the post doesn't: Canada Supreme Court: Saying "I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom The bolded part should read does not mean you've consented to sex without a condom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 These double negatives should be removed. The best way to phrase this (which media has failed at) is: Canada Supreme Court: Consenting to sex with a condom does not grant consent to sex without a condom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 29, 2022 Author Share Posted July 29, 2022 3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: @SaysWho? That makes sense, but the title of the post doesn't: Canada Supreme Court: Saying "I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom The bolded part should read does not mean you've consented to sex without a condom Ah, I see; I didn't say without. The negatives are tripping me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 The story as presented in the thread title seemed like a story. The actual story seems like a no doi situation and how the fuck did 4 of them rule otherwise? What happened to SCOC justices being better picked @CitizenVectron? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 2 minutes ago, Jason said: The story as presented in the thread title seemed like a story. The actual story seems like a no doi situation and how the fuck did 4 of them rule otherwise? What happened to SCOC justices being better picked @CitizenVectron? As usual, I imagine it's the specifics of the situation, and details we don't read about in the topline story. Because they are ruling on a specific case, not the idea itself, necessarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 This is why teaching clear, affirmative consent from an early age is important for everyone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.