The Personal Responsibility Approach To Having Sex
If you are forced to have sex at knifepoint in a stairwell, you have little choice in the matter. You do what you need to do to survive. It's not like you can say, "You're not really my type."
If, however, you have a little more choice than that, it is up to you to use it -- like to decide that you'll wait to get to know a man and see whether he's ethical before you have sex with him.
This isn't to say this stealthily slipping off the condom business by men that's supposedly a new trend is okay or right in any way. It's not.
But Toni Airaksinen is absolutely right about this:
Problem solved: don't have sex with men you can't trust to keep the condom on. Simple as that. https://t.co/av3ZC83BMb
— Toni Airaksinen (@Toni_Airaksinen) April 27, 2017
Toni's tweet leads to an article on "stealthing" -- this supposed trend of a man removing the condom secretly during sex. Yes, this has been done -- of course -- at times, and maybe even done with some frequency. But a sudden new trend? I doubt it.
Eric Glasser writes for USA Today of "a new report in Columbia Journal of Gender and Law":
Lead author Alexandra Brodsky said while the law is largely silent on the practice of "stealthing," she believes it should be considered a form of sexual assault and could violate several civil and criminal laws....In the report, Brodsky profiles a doctoral student named Rebecca who works for a local rape crisis hotline. Rebecca, who was the victim of stealthing as a freshman, said she hears about stealthing from students and says many callers start with, 'I'm not sure this is rape, but...'
...The study concludes existing laws don't specifically cover stealthing, despite the heightened risk of pregnancy and even public health risk associated with spreading sexually transmitted diseases.
Brodsky concludes that new protections should be in place for those who are victims of the practice.
"Ultimately, a new tort for "stealthing" is necessary both to provide victims with a more viable cause of action and to reflect better the harms wrought by nonconsensual condom removal," she said in the paper.
This is absolutely awful and wrong behavior, but think of the possibility for abuse here, under some "new tort." It mirrors what's going on on campuses where men are guilty when accused -- even if they're passed out while a woman was the one giving them a blow job.
Consider the he said/she said that comes into play here: Maybe she told him not to wear a condom and then gets vindictive afterward, maybe because he calls her the wrong name during sex.
I want rapists prosecuted -- any decent person does -- but I also want to make sure we have adequate standards of evidence. It is better that we let a guilty person go free (whether that person is a robber or rapist or even a murderer) than that we convict an innocent person.
By the way, one thing I find rather unbelievable is that all these men are supposedly all whoopeee! about going condom-free. The child support police are rather assiduous in going after the funds of men whose genetic material results in a child -- and they even go after some men who aren't really the father of a child but have the finger pointed at them by women.
Oh, and and again, while I think this removal of a condom by a man without a woman's consent is really rotten, Brodsky's claim that this is rape comes from rather stretched "logic":
There are two primary ways to argue that the nonconsensual removal of a condom vitiates consent to the sex itself. The first, which I will argue is preferable, is a literal approach: the victim consented to touch by a condom, not touch by the skin of a penis.
People use condoms as birth control not because they're into latex. This is merely a violation of some pledge, if any, to use birth control.
Then there's this:
The second rationale for viewing "stealthing" as a consent violation centers on the different risks inherent to sex with a condom and sex without a condom. The logic would go like this: Someone who consents to a certain sexual act does so after balancing the benefits and risks of that behavior.
What if someone lies to another person about having the flu, coming in to work to get a big project done. Is this a form of rape if the co-worker ends up being bedridden for a week? Or, maybe, do we just charge them with theft?
Again, I think it's truly rotten to do this sneaky business with the condom.
But I think we need to be very careful about the laws we pass because they have tremendous potential for abuse and life ruination.
Again, your best bet for avoiding a "stealther," is having sex after you feel you have reason to trust him -- which you, sadly, probably don't have after an hour and three margaritas.
And yes, I realize this is heresy, suggesting to women that they employ some personal responsibility.
This piece is right on in so many ways, and I'd like to see it get wider distribution.
As you say, no guy is going to try to leave behind unwanted babies unless he's sure he won't be caught. And it wouldn't surprise me if the next time we renew our drivers' licenses we all have to submit DNA swabs for some government database.
I have no problem with treating condom removal as a consent violation. But there is such a thing as carrying that much too far, and it seems to be the new thing in feminism. In Israel, men have been convicted of rape because they lied about their occupation, home town, ethnicity, or religion in order to get laid. Give me a break.
Another real problem we're going to have to fix is this epidemic of false accusations -- not just of rape but of domestic violence and even child molestation. Pretty soon we're all going to need to install cameras in our own bedrooms just to protect against false charges.
But then we'll need yet another law to prevent an epidemic of revenge porn. (I suggest we adopt the law they have in Germany -- I forget its name -- that says if I take a photo of you in a non-public place, that photo is born copyrighted by you. Not me. Thus I can have it, but I can't share it without permission or I get sued for infringement and the pictures suppressed.)
jdgalt at May 1, 2017 11:21 PM
And yes, I realize this is heresy, suggesting to women that they employ some personal responsibility.
It's heresy suggesting to women or men that they employ some personal repsonsibilty for procreation.
Even as a lusty teenage lad who was "losing my virginity" (again and again and again), I had the sense to wear condoms or engage in the kind of sex that couldn't involve procreation.
Birth control is a gift from the (science) gods as surely as the polio vaccine. If you don't want to have a baby -- "you" being a man or a woman -- it's easy enough to avoid it.
But it would take a special kind of idiot to remove a condom and risk impregnating a woman, with all the expense and legal fuss involved. Plus you'd be stuck with a baby and a six-figure debt for the better part of two decades. Talk about a sexually transmitted disease that's not easy to cure.
Kevin at May 2, 2017 12:41 AM
This piece is right on in so many ways, and I'd like to see it get wider distribution.
As would I! Please share it! You'll need to copy and paste the title of the post into the share links. (We've been unable to fix that as of yet.)
Women who don't want to get pregnant also need to take personal responsibility for birth control.
Excuse me for getting a little personal, but I have an IUD, because the only way I am having any children is if one sneaks into my house and hides in the attic.
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2017 5:30 AM
Condoms are good for preventing diseases, but IUDs and birth control pills are more reliable for preventing pregnancy and don't require last minute action. The IUD has an extremely low failure rate. Except for long term relationships, it's probably best to use both condoms and a second form of birth control.
Carey Haug at May 2, 2017 5:52 AM
Someone who consents to a certain sexual act does so after balancing the benefits and risks of that behavior.
Imagine the howls of outrage if the proposed law was written to include women's behavior. "Don't worry, I'm on the pill."
The prescriptive advice is just as true for men: don't have unprotected sex with a woman you can't trust to use birth control. Here's hoping Vasogel or another male birth control option is approved. Our Bodies, Our Choice.
Bluderbuss at May 2, 2017 6:43 AM
Coming soon to Amazon personalized "chastity belts with bling" for ages 12 and up.
Seriously, women need to decide what responsibility should be placed on their "sisters" for "safe" (non-abusive and birth control) sex because the feminists have already decided that it's all rape to them.
I have no idea why any college "girl" would agree to have sex with just any college "boy". STD, pregnancy, abusive juvenile behavior, seem to be reason enough. Put some thought into it if you have any self-respect.
Bob in Texas at May 2, 2017 6:49 AM
I would suggest it is far more likely for a woman to say she is on birth control to get the man in bed than for a man to remove a condom. The risk of knocking the girl up is not a risk a man wants, especially if he has already gone as far as using a condom. I would bet this is very very rare. A "trend" on the internet means 3 anecdotes. To try to call this rape is just insane. How about assault if he or she said they had a shower before sex but did not or blame the dog when they fart?
Women take the most risk because they can get pregnant. They therefore have the most to lose by being careless. They therefore need to be more careful. Is this "unfair"? Life is unfair--remember, men die younger and go bald which is also unfair.
As another example, if he isn't committed enough to marry you, why do you ladies go ahead and move in with him and get pregnant? What part of "not committed" don't you get?
cc at May 2, 2017 6:56 AM
"Imagine the howls of outrage if the proposed law was written to include women's behavior. 'Don't worry, I'm on the pill.'"
Unless the implementation of the law was completely sexist, which in practice it probably would be. A woman being charged would be almost unheard of.
Cousin Dave at May 2, 2017 7:07 AM
I agree it should also go for women " not" on the pill or other bc. But I remember this is what they were going after Julian Assange for. http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/
Joe J at May 2, 2017 7:30 AM
By the way, one thing I find rather unbelievable is that all these men are supposedly all whoopeee! about going condom-free. The child support police are rather assiduous in going after the funds of men whose genetic material results in a child -- and they even go after some men who aren't really the father of a child but have the finger pointed at them by women.
____________________________________________
According to the late Dr. Sol Gordon (who wrote some very good books for teens that are WAY different from others), a common seduction line was "you have nothing to worry about. I'm sterile."
OK, so he was talking about teen boys. But men with multiple "baby mamas" are hardly an extinct species, even in the post-1990s era, when child support laws grew some real teeth.
Here's what I said in 2013:
My guess is, the younger and poorer a man is, the more short-sighted he's likely to be - and his sense of despair may make him feel that reproducing is the only way he can get any social dignity.
Washington Post reporter Leon Dash wrote the 1989 book "When Children Want Children." He quoted poor teen boys as saying:
"With her on the Pill, I couldn't feel like a man."
Dash also said that NEITHER the boys or the girls were that interested in child-raising or even marriage - they just wanted to reproduce and raise their social status.
And I don't know how much state laws differ, but it's possible that some men find it easy enough to evade the law when it comes to child support. (Of course, men under 25 often don't think about it in advance at all.)
BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the subject of Kay Stoeffel's article isn't new - if Hollywood is any indication. See Harvey Keitel's 1978 movie: "Fingers." In one pretty unpleasant scene, he orders a woman to remove her diaphragm.
___________________________________
Imagine the howls of outrage if the proposed law was written to include women's behavior. "Don't worry, I'm on the pill."
Bluderbuss at May 2, 2017 6:43 AM
___________________________________________
The trouble there, of course, is that every contraceptive can FAIL; that is the more likely scenario, and it can be very difficult to prove that she lied about being on the Pill - or deliberately skipped taking one or two. Someone said that the reverse deception scenario is more common - in the movie "Educating Rita," she takes the Pill without her husband's knowledge.
____________________________________________
Women take the most risk because they can get pregnant. They therefore have the most to lose by being careless. They therefore need to be more careful. Is this "unfair"? Life is unfair
____________________________________________
If a woman can't count on a man to support a child (or help pay for an abortion) just because he promised to, well, a man shouldn't count on a woman to have - or not have - an abortion just because she implied that she would follow any order he gives or any change of mind he might have. Once a child is born, it has rights, and the law WILL enforce them. So men also need to be a lot more careful than they are right now. Sounds fair to me.
A lot of men seem to think it's unfair for single men to have to pay to use Vasalgel when they're already under pressure to use condoms for STD protection, or for men in LTRs to have to even THINK about birth control after years and years of using condoms (i.e., paying their dues). So I suspect the only way Vasalgel is going to become truly popular is if parents of young men everywhere either bribe or order their sons to get Vasalgel as soon as the doctor gives permission (age 18?) AND if it's mostly covered by insurance, so that young single men will be less likely to complain about having to pay for condoms too. That would also make it emotionally easier for men to keep using it even when his new wife says "oh, you don't have to get a replacement when it runs out - I'll be on the Pill." HE can say "I'll keep using it for both our sakes, honey - I'm used to it."
lenona at May 2, 2017 8:21 AM
Sexually active women who don't want kids use birth control. The condom is used more to prevent the transmission of STDs, not pregnancy.
Patrick at May 2, 2017 8:27 AM
Yes! Let make a law where a broken condom results in the man being arrested! Nothing could go wrong with that. Sheesh! Child support is punishment enough.
MATT at May 2, 2017 8:35 AM
Since most feminists are pro-abortion/pro-choice then why do they care if their "sisters" exercise poor choice? They gotten their goal of being able to screw like men - anytime, anywhere, anyone.
He said/she unfortunately works against one of them. That's why people (other than feminists) want to walk away from these disputes. Who knows what happened, when it happened, what was said/understood or even misunderstood.
I walked away from several "Should I be a bad girl?" moments. Sent shivers up my spine. Missed opportunities or missed incidents. Scary. What's that saying? "Better safe than sorry."
Bob in Texas at May 2, 2017 10:08 AM
I think the real issue is that the first thought that enters a woman's mind after she finds out she's been stealthed is, "Oh, No! I don't think this is going to turn into a long-term relationship!"
Fayd at May 2, 2017 10:23 AM
Yes, there are men who get their jollies from seeing how many women they can get pregnant. But they usually aren't that subtle about it. They just go into full-out seduction mode and try to make the woman forget about birth control altogether. Some of them are really good at it. Most of them are really good at skipping town afterwards.
Other men can see these kinds of guys coming from a mile away. We often wonder why some women can't.
Cousin Dave at May 2, 2017 12:07 PM
Other men can see these kinds of guys coming from a mile away. We often wonder why some women can't.
Cousin Dave at May 2, 2017 12:07 PM
Because when hormones come into play, people lose their objectivity, which is why hook up culture is so destructive.
Making decisions with your sex parts has never been a very good long term strategy for health or happiness.
Isab at May 2, 2017 12:41 PM
Pinhole through the condom? She raped him.
Jay R at May 2, 2017 12:41 PM
"Making decisions with your sex parts has never been a very good long term strategy for health or happiness."
True dat.
Cousin Dave at May 2, 2017 1:37 PM
Don't think it has anything to do with hookup culture or hormones myself.
If you look into the family history of the women this is typical behavior of a man. As in this has been happening for several generations, even when the consequences where extreme.
I know historically in Hispanic culture the men where always expected to have babies outside of marriage and with multiple women. I personally think this is why it is still a prevalent problem. The mothers might beat the shit out of these girls for the mistake but the underlying message is that it is is perfectly acceptable mistake to make and one that will bring alot of joy.
Human beings don't go after what is best they are hardwired to go after what is familiar. That is why very few people escape the lessons of their childhood.
"Give me the child for the first seven years and I'll give you the man.”
― Jesuit maxim
My therapist has been a social worker for 30 years says these people don't see children as separate entities but rather as extensions of the self and can't conceptualize the idea of them suffering through neglect. Though they understand they were neglected themselves they don't understand the connection of passing it on to the next generation. Rather they are more interested in their immediate needs, which is usually companionship with a rejecting partner at the expensive of children because that is what they are used to.
I never let a man or a woman convince me that an unwanted baby was ever an unforeseen mistake. That's why I'm fully against so called financial abortions.
As always lenona love your long ass comments.
Ppen at May 2, 2017 3:31 PM
"If you look into the family history of the women this is typical behavior of a man."
Agree w/Ppen on this one but as an old white guy I could not say that w/o sounding racists.
I COULD SAY that one or two of my class mates in the '70's thought that way and had multiple children by different Mothers.
Things look better lately.
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2016/us-teen-pregnancy-birth-and-abortion-rates-reach-lowest-levels-almost-four-decades
Bob in Texas at May 2, 2017 4:11 PM
Another issue is that once a woman finds out she's been stealthed, things will never be the same for any man she sleeps with after that. "DO YOU STILL HAVE THE CONDOM ON?" "I THINK YOU TOOK OFF THE CONDOM! STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND SHOW ME YOU STILL HAVE THE CONDOM ON!" "WHY ARE YOU LEAVING? DID YOU JUST STEALTH ME?"
Fayd at May 2, 2017 8:31 PM
So do today's young Alpha wanna-bes stealth or not? Or is that Beta behavior? And if Alphas do it then don't Betas do it because emulating an Alpha helps to ensure ... wait, are we humans or pack dogs? Remind me.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 2, 2017 10:53 PM
"these people don't see children as separate entities but rather as extensions of the self..."
Heck, you can see that in America's toniest neighborhoods. Go to a Little League game or dance recital and check out how many parents are living vicariously through their children.
Cousin Dave at May 3, 2017 5:46 AM
So, does this mean men can have women who lie about birth control charged with rape?
Seems to me any man could cry rape on any woman who winds up pregnant
lujlp at May 3, 2017 10:12 AM
Exactly, luj. Katha Pollitt pointed that out in 1998. You can read that column here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/alt.support.childfree/2vTd0oUebe4/k036WlFwh_wJ
Quote:
"One hopes that the point will not be lost on the judge that a victory for Wallis could mean the end of paternal support for out-of-wedlock children--every man could claim his girlfriend tricked him--and that, therefore, to treat one person's interpretation of a private conversation as an enforceable contract would be against the public interest. What's more, contracts must involve mutual obligations and sexual performance cannot legally figure in them, so how is Wallis's princely offer to have sex with Smith if she assumed all the risk of birth control--he does nothing, she does everything--a contract?"
(What she didn't mention is that, had Peter Wallis won the case - he didn't - someday, married fathers would likely have the same right, too. Much as they unofficially had a century ago, when a "poor man's divorce" simply meant a man's abandoning his wife and kids - and she was often assumed to have driven him to it, since everyone "knew" that bad things didn't happen to virtuous women. Of course, it was easier for men to do that since they knew the law wouldn't REALLY pursue them for child support. I trust no one wants to go back to that "system.")
Ppen, I always like your comments as well.
lenona at May 3, 2017 2:46 PM
And for anyone who's still unclear as to how Vasalgel works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtUJj_QRvFg
It's animated and it's only 1:36 minutes long.
Btw, the solution used to reverse it is a form of baking soda.
lenona at May 3, 2017 2:52 PM
Things look better lately.
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2016/us-teen-pregnancy-birth-and-abortion-rates-reach-lowest-levels-almost-four-decades
Bob in Texas at May 2, 2017 4:11 PM
________________________________________
Quote from that article:
“Teens have become more successful at preventing pregnancy than they were in the past. Sexual activity has remained constant among this age-group, but birth and abortion rates have both decreased dramatically,” says lead author Kathryn Kost. “The available evidence suggests that increased contraceptive use is the primary driver of this decline.”
(I.e., not less sex, as some claim.)
lenona at May 3, 2017 2:55 PM
Human beings don't go after what is best they are hardwired to go after what is familiar. That is why very few people escape the lessons of their childhood.
-Ppen
______________________________________
Forgot to say: That reminds me of the "All in the Family" episode "Two's a Crowd." In it, Archie drunkenly but stubbornly insists to Mike that nothing that a father teaches his kids can be wrong. Even the worst racist fathers, apparently, so long as they stay home, feed their kids, and don't cheat on their wives. Thus, Archie argues, loving your father means never questioning anything he teaches you.
(Of course, Archie was helped by the fact that Mike's father was also a racist. Mike dared to say that both fathers were wrong, which is what sets off Archie's rant.)
lenona at May 3, 2017 3:25 PM
(Of course, Archie was helped by the fact that Mike's father was also a racist. Mike dared to say that both fathers were wrong, which is what sets off Archie's rant.)
lenona at May 3, 2017 3:25 PM
You think people have to be taught to be racist? Evolutionary biology and psychology say it is hardwired behavior.
You can teach people not to act on their racism and to overcome it, in their decision making process but to assume that racism is a learned behavior is just plain wrong.
Isab at May 3, 2017 7:34 PM
Well, yes, I HAD always heard that racism is something you're taught.
And I think it's important to distinguish between a fear of the unfamiliar, a tendency to stereotype for better or worse (especially when you've encountered people from a certain ethnic group only once or twice, briefly, in your entire childhood), and the belief that people who don't belong to your ethnic group are inherently inferior - and/or despicable. All three are different things. I have never heard that that last belief is "hardwired behavior." I very much doubt it.
lenona at May 5, 2017 11:50 AM
Oh, forgot to say - as Archie tells it in the episode, his father was violent toward his kids and even locked Archie in a closet for 7 hours as punishment for something untold - but Archie talks as though there was nothing wrong with those types of punishment either and that it was all
" 'cause he loved me. Don't be looking at me. Let me tell you something, you're supposed to love your father 'cause your father loves you. How can any man who loves you tell you anything that's wrong?"
lenona at May 5, 2017 11:56 AM
A reminder as to how subtle "teaching" can be:
I found it in a short juvenile nonfiction book on racism that I've been trying to track down since I saw it briefly in 2006. In all likelihood, when you think about it, it was written after 1985 or so - I can't imagine this sort of not-so-common sense being portrayed by a white person in ANY book on racism written earlier than that.
A white Southern woman, probably born in the 1950s, told how her mother was an impeccable lady and also “quite a racist.” However, the mother never said an unkind word about any person based on that person’s skin color, because “she was too much of a lady for that.” Even so, every time the mother and her daughter went shopping and had to talk to a black cashier or black sales employee, the mother used a tone of voice as if she were talking to a silly preschooler. So, wrote the daughter, (not verbatim) “she passed on her racist views to me without a single word being exchanged between us on the subject!”
lenona at May 5, 2017 12:38 PM
It's been a while since I was on the prowl, but in my day the guys didn't want to knock someone up and be on the hook for either marriage or child support.
NicoleK at May 8, 2017 6:35 AM
Leave a comment