Condoms suck. Unless you suffer from premature ejaculation that is. I hate wearing them though. Put one on for show them discretely remove or break it > pull out at the last minute. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll get an STD.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, if you convince the girl you are wearing a condom and then remove it without her knowledge and consent then you are treading on very thin ice and could face a rape charge. And that’s some serious shit right there. Obviously this depends upon the jurisdiction, but I suspect this would be the case in NSW.
Didn’t Julian Assange try this shit in Sweden? He’s not done too well since.
I’m thinking keeping the skin on and in good nick is a damn fine idea.
And it shows the lady some respect as well.
[/quote]
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
[/quote]
To be fair dude if you pretend to have a condom on then fuck someone you have removed their ability to consent, which is sexual assault. That is not just some slick move, it is forcing someone to take a huge risk of unprotected sex, without their consent.
[/quote]
Sexual assault? Come off it man. Under your classification half the stuff that women do would be classed as sexual assault too.
Condoms suck. Unless you suffer from premature ejaculation that is. I hate wearing them though. Put one on for show them discretely remove or break it > pull out at the last minute. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll get an STD.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, if you convince the girl you are wearing a condom and then remove it without her knowledge and consent then you are treading on very thin ice and could face a rape charge. And that’s some serious shit right there. Obviously this depends upon the jurisdiction, but I suspect this would be the case in NSW.
Didn’t Julian Assange try this shit in Sweden? He’s not done too well since.
I’m thinking keeping the skin on and in good nick is a damn fine idea.
And it shows the lady some respect as well.
[/quote]
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
[/quote]
To be fair dude if you pretend to have a condom on then fuck someone you have removed their ability to consent, which is sexual assault. That is not just some slick move, it is forcing someone to take a huge risk of unprotected sex, without their consent.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this or are you just making things up? Because that’s a fairly specific claim and the logic used to get there leads to some rather awkward conclusions unless this situation is specifically spelled out in law.
Condoms suck. Unless you suffer from premature ejaculation that is. I hate wearing them though. Put one on for show them discretely remove or break it > pull out at the last minute. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll get an STD.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, if you convince the girl you are wearing a condom and then remove it without her knowledge and consent then you are treading on very thin ice and could face a rape charge. And that’s some serious shit right there. Obviously this depends upon the jurisdiction, but I suspect this would be the case in NSW.
Didn’t Julian Assange try this shit in Sweden? He’s not done too well since.
I’m thinking keeping the skin on and in good nick is a damn fine idea.
And it shows the lady some respect as well.
[/quote]
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
[/quote]
To be fair dude if you pretend to have a condom on then fuck someone you have removed their ability to consent, which is sexual assault. That is not just some slick move, it is forcing someone to take a huge risk of unprotected sex, without their consent.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this or are you just making things up? Because that’s a fairly specific claim and the logic used to get there leads to some rather awkward conclusions unless this situation is specifically spelled out in law. [/quote]
How would she prove something like that anyway. She’d have to prove the condom was broken and that you deliberately broke it. Assange got busted because he had two different women get together and snitch. Pretty unusual case.
Condoms suck. Unless you suffer from premature ejaculation that is. I hate wearing them though. Put one on for show them discretely remove or break it > pull out at the last minute. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll get an STD.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, if you convince the girl you are wearing a condom and then remove it without her knowledge and consent then you are treading on very thin ice and could face a rape charge. And that’s some serious shit right there. Obviously this depends upon the jurisdiction, but I suspect this would be the case in NSW.
Didn’t Julian Assange try this shit in Sweden? He’s not done too well since.
I’m thinking keeping the skin on and in good nick is a damn fine idea.
And it shows the lady some respect as well.
[/quote]
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
[/quote]
To be fair dude if you pretend to have a condom on then fuck someone you have removed their ability to consent, which is sexual assault. That is not just some slick move, it is forcing someone to take a huge risk of unprotected sex, without their consent.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this or are you just making things up? Because that’s a fairly specific claim and the logic used to get there leads to some rather awkward conclusions unless this situation is specifically spelled out in law. [/quote]
Lying about wearing a condom and then removing it during intercourse is wrong, how can you claim sex is consensual if she agreed under the understanding protection was used? This is morality 101
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Abortion rules. Thank god for abortions. If all the morons had abortions we would be so much better off than we currently are. There is a woman who lives across the street from me, she had four children with four different men, has been given a house, work done on the house and has a better income than most people earn who live on the street and work.
Her children are all in trouble all the time, they don’t have any jobs and they probably will never get one.
If she had gotten abortions and people like her did, society would be a whole lot better for it. I know that isn’t the PC thing to say but I can’t think of a better solution to the dependency problem in society than education about contraception, full access to abortion and the removal of government aid to jobless people who have children.
I am all for people having whatever faith they want and being religious but their personal religious morals should not mean I am forced to pay the bill for other people children. Personal responsibility should take precedent, especially when it is the publics tax money that has to fund these families.
[/quote]
There was an economic study done that correlates crime rates with abortion negatively - they compared time periods before Roe v. Wade and after and found statistically significant evidence of the negative correlation
this was featured in the Freakonomics book (one of the Freakonomics authors authored the study)
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Abortion rules. Thank god for abortions. If all the morons had abortions we would be so much better off than we currently are. There is a woman who lives across the street from me, she had four children with four different men, has been given a house, work done on the house and has a better income than most people earn who live on the street and work.
Her children are all in trouble all the time, they don’t have any jobs and they probably will never get one.
If she had gotten abortions and people like her did, society would be a whole lot better for it. I know that isn’t the PC thing to say but I can’t think of a better solution to the dependency problem in society than education about contraception, full access to abortion and the removal of government aid to jobless people who have children.
I am all for people having whatever faith they want and being religious but their personal religious morals should not mean I am forced to pay the bill for other people children. Personal responsibility should take precedent, especially when it is the publics tax money that has to fund these families.
[/quote]
There was an economic study done that correlates crime rates with abortion negatively - they compared time periods before Roe v. Wade and after and found statistically significant evidence of the negative correlation
this was featured in the Freakonomics book (one of the Freakonomics authors authored the study)[/quote]
I don’t believe correlation in this case indicates causation. For example you can find correlation for things like saturated fat and heart disease. Yet we now see, with the official medical stance changing, that the correlation was simply ignoring contributing factors.
Could you sum up how exactly legal abortion has lead to increased crime? I am open to changing my mind but people who argue these positions are almost always anti choice, which means they are biased on the matter.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Abortion rules. Thank god for abortions. If all the morons had abortions we would be so much better off than we currently are. There is a woman who lives across the street from me, she had four children with four different men, has been given a house, work done on the house and has a better income than most people earn who live on the street and work.
Her children are all in trouble all the time, they don’t have any jobs and they probably will never get one.
If she had gotten abortions and people like her did, society would be a whole lot better for it. I know that isn’t the PC thing to say but I can’t think of a better solution to the dependency problem in society than education about contraception, full access to abortion and the removal of government aid to jobless people who have children.
I am all for people having whatever faith they want and being religious but their personal religious morals should not mean I am forced to pay the bill for other people children. Personal responsibility should take precedent, especially when it is the publics tax money that has to fund these families.
[/quote]
There was an economic study done that correlates crime rates with abortion negatively - they compared time periods before Roe v. Wade and after and found statistically significant evidence of the negative correlation
this was featured in the Freakonomics book (one of the Freakonomics authors authored the study)[/quote]
I don’t believe correlation in this case indicates causation. For example you can find correlation for things like saturated fat and heart disease. Yet we now see, with the official medical stance changing, that the correlation was simply ignoring contributing factors.
Could you sum up how exactly legal abortion has lead to increased crime? I am open to changing my mind but people who argue these positions are almost always anti choice, which means they are biased on the matter.
[/quote]
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Abortion rules. Thank god for abortions. If all the morons had abortions we would be so much better off than we currently are. There is a woman who lives across the street from me, she had four children with four different men, has been given a house, work done on the house and has a better income than most people earn who live on the street and work.
Her children are all in trouble all the time, they don’t have any jobs and they probably will never get one.
If she had gotten abortions and people like her did, society would be a whole lot better for it. I know that isn’t the PC thing to say but I can’t think of a better solution to the dependency problem in society than education about contraception, full access to abortion and the removal of government aid to jobless people who have children.
I am all for people having whatever faith they want and being religious but their personal religious morals should not mean I am forced to pay the bill for other people children. Personal responsibility should take precedent, especially when it is the publics tax money that has to fund these families.
[/quote]
There was an economic study done that correlates crime rates with abortion negatively - they compared time periods before Roe v. Wade and after and found statistically significant evidence of the negative correlation
this was featured in the Freakonomics book (one of the Freakonomics authors authored the study)[/quote]
I don’t believe correlation in this case indicates causation. For example you can find correlation for things like saturated fat and heart disease. Yet we now see, with the official medical stance changing, that the correlation was simply ignoring contributing factors.
Could you sum up how exactly legal abortion has lead to increased crime? I am open to changing my mind but people who argue these positions are almost always anti choice, which means they are biased on the matter.
[/quote]
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Abortion rules. Thank god for abortions. If all the morons had abortions we would be so much better off than we currently are. There is a woman who lives across the street from me, she had four children with four different men, has been given a house, work done on the house and has a better income than most people earn who live on the street and work.
Her children are all in trouble all the time, they don’t have any jobs and they probably will never get one.
If she had gotten abortions and people like her did, society would be a whole lot better for it. I know that isn’t the PC thing to say but I can’t think of a better solution to the dependency problem in society than education about contraception, full access to abortion and the removal of government aid to jobless people who have children.
I am all for people having whatever faith they want and being religious but their personal religious morals should not mean I am forced to pay the bill for other people children. Personal responsibility should take precedent, especially when it is the publics tax money that has to fund these families.
[/quote]
There was an economic study done that correlates crime rates with abortion negatively - they compared time periods before Roe v. Wade and after and found statistically significant evidence of the negative correlation
this was featured in the Freakonomics book (one of the Freakonomics authors authored the study)[/quote]
I don’t believe correlation in this case indicates causation. For example you can find correlation for things like saturated fat and heart disease. Yet we now see, with the official medical stance changing, that the correlation was simply ignoring contributing factors.
Could you sum up how exactly legal abortion has lead to increased crime? I am open to changing my mind but people who argue these positions are almost always anti choice, which means they are biased on the matter.
[/quote]
It is the other way. Increased abortion rates decrease crime. It is not a popular theory for liberals or conservatives.
Condoms suck. Unless you suffer from premature ejaculation that is. I hate wearing them though. Put one on for show them discretely remove or break it > pull out at the last minute. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll get an STD.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, if you convince the girl you are wearing a condom and then remove it without her knowledge and consent then you are treading on very thin ice and could face a rape charge. And that’s some serious shit right there. Obviously this depends upon the jurisdiction, but I suspect this would be the case in NSW.
Didn’t Julian Assange try this shit in Sweden? He’s not done too well since.
I’m thinking keeping the skin on and in good nick is a damn fine idea.
And it shows the lady some respect as well.
[/quote]
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
[/quote]
To be fair dude if you pretend to have a condom on then fuck someone you have removed their ability to consent, which is sexual assault. That is not just some slick move, it is forcing someone to take a huge risk of unprotected sex, without their consent.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this or are you just making things up? Because that’s a fairly specific claim and the logic used to get there leads to some rather awkward conclusions unless this situation is specifically spelled out in law. [/quote]
Lying about wearing a condom and then removing it during intercourse is wrong, how can you claim sex is consensual if she agreed under the understanding protection was used? This is morality 101[/quote]
Just because it’s wrong doesn’t make it sexual assault. If she lies about being on the pill is that sexual assault?
The problem with the argument you are making is that by the same logic any misrepresentation of any sort would make resulting sex sexual assault. And that could feasibly be extended to include any situation where someone believed something that wasn’t true, even if misrepresentation wasn’t intended. Dress nicely and she assumes you’re richer than you are: sexual assault.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
The problem with the argument you are making is that by the same logic any misrepresentation of any sort would make resulting sex sexual assault. And that could feasibly be extended to include any situation where someone believed something that wasn’t true, even if misrepresentation wasn’t intended. Dress nicely and she assumes you’re richer than you are: sexual assault. [/quote]
Admittedly, not the US, but still…
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.
When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.
Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.
Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not “a classical rape by force,” the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.
The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated,” they added.
Condoms suck. Unless you suffer from premature ejaculation that is. I hate wearing them though. Put one on for show them discretely remove or break it > pull out at the last minute. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll get an STD.[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m going to go out on a limb here, if you convince the girl you are wearing a condom and then remove it without her knowledge and consent then you are treading on very thin ice and could face a rape charge. And that’s some serious shit right there. Obviously this depends upon the jurisdiction, but I suspect this would be the case in NSW.
Didn’t Julian Assange try this shit in Sweden? He’s not done too well since.
I’m thinking keeping the skin on and in good nick is a damn fine idea.
And it shows the lady some respect as well.
[/quote]
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
[/quote]
To be fair dude if you pretend to have a condom on then fuck someone you have removed their ability to consent, which is sexual assault. That is not just some slick move, it is forcing someone to take a huge risk of unprotected sex, without their consent.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this or are you just making things up? Because that’s a fairly specific claim and the logic used to get there leads to some rather awkward conclusions unless this situation is specifically spelled out in law. [/quote]
Withdrawl of consent is sexual assault. If she says “stop” and you don’t, it’s sexual assault. If she says, “I’ll sleep with you, but only if you wear a condom” and you don’t, then she hasn’t consented to sex. Ergo, you’ve sexually assaulted her.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A white knight huh? I respect women so far as they are worthy of respect as individuals. I’ve never impregnated a woman or passed on a disease or anything.
How would she prove something like that anyway. She’d have to prove the condom was broken and that you deliberately broke it. Assange got busted because he had two different women get together and snitch. Pretty unusual case.[/quote]
A white knight…Yes, and proudly so.
I’m glad you respect women as individuals and don’t just treat them as a device which takes the sperm from the bedroom to the bathroom. But what part of that respect allows duplicity such as what you’ve stated?
I’m sure the ladies are equally glad you’ve never impregnated any of them, or passed on a disease.
BTW. You live in NSW. IIRC NSW allows serious charges like sexual assaults to be tried together and not separately (as for Victoria and QLD). This allows a pattern of behaviour to be established which a jury may decide is sufficient for proof. The English also have this legal feature which was a critical part of convicting Rolf Harris.
A conviction may be easier than you think…so here’s a tip, keep your tip covered or make your intentions clear from the start.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Abortion rules. Thank god for abortions. If all the morons had abortions we would be so much better off than we currently are. There is a woman who lives across the street from me, she had four children with four different men, has been given a house, work done on the house and has a better income than most people earn who live on the street and work.
Her children are all in trouble all the time, they don’t have any jobs and they probably will never get one.
If she had gotten abortions and people like her did, society would be a whole lot better for it. I know that isn’t the PC thing to say but I can’t think of a better solution to the dependency problem in society than education about contraception, full access to abortion and the removal of government aid to jobless people who have children.
I am all for people having whatever faith they want and being religious but their personal religious morals should not mean I am forced to pay the bill for other people children. Personal responsibility should take precedent, especially when it is the publics tax money that has to fund these families.
[/quote]
There was an economic study done that correlates crime rates with abortion negatively - they compared time periods before Roe v. Wade and after and found statistically significant evidence of the negative correlation
this was featured in the Freakonomics book (one of the Freakonomics authors authored the study)[/quote]
I don’t believe correlation in this case indicates causation. For example you can find correlation for things like saturated fat and heart disease. Yet we now see, with the official medical stance changing, that the correlation was simply ignoring contributing factors.
Could you sum up how exactly legal abortion has lead to increased crime? I am open to changing my mind but people who argue these positions are almost always anti choice, which means they are biased on the matter.
[/quote]
Never said causation … and your logic is backwards … it’s a NEGATIVE correlation i.e. an increase in one is observed with a decrease in the other, specifically after Roe v Wade and the introduction to widely available, medically safe(er) abortions there was a stat. sig. decrease in crime rates - the author (Steven Levit I believe) recognizes other factors, but attempts to explain it as young, lower income women now had access to safer options (i.e. abortion clinics) which they then could exercise that option when an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy occurred.
Higher numbers of this group may have exercised this option, giving them more freedom to improve their human capital and financial situation allowing them, when they did decide to start a family, to be a better situation financially and socially to raise the child with more opportunities available than if they had a child younger and with less favorable economic options or conditions. Thus, less struggle, more time to focus on rearing the child, etc… (this is a quick and dirty cliff’s notes and I’m sure I’m leaving out some things - the link is there if you want to read it … the Wiki page has links to other resources and readings if you’re really interested)
This actually reminds me of a study I read regarding access to day care for young mothers. I forget the name of the study, but it yielded similar results IIRC - the study focused on a specific socio-economic group much like the one I described above - low income, single young mothers who opted to not have abortions. There were two or three types of day cares set up in these areas - one a regular day care with little to no educational focus outside of conventional age group education, the other focused on early exposure to education (alphabets, colors, shapes, etc…). IIRC, the latter had extended hours, I think the kids were there for something like 8 to 10 hrs or something like that while the former had normal (for the time, this was in the 70s and 80s I believe) hours, 6 hrs max I believe.
They measured success by high school graduation rates of the two groups, but they also controlled for the economic success of the mothers … I believe the mother’s of the latter group ended up making more money of the time span than the former group (stat. sig.) while the graduation rates among the kids was stat. insig.
Never said causation … and your logic is backwards … it’s a NEGATIVE correlation i.e. an increase in one is observed with a decrease in the other, specifically after Roe v Wade and the introduction to widely available, medically safe(er) abortions there was a stat. sig. decrease in crime rates - the author (Steven Levit I believe) recognizes other factors, but attempts to explain it as young, lower income women now had access to safer options (i.e. abortion clinics) which they then could exercise that option when an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy occurred.
Higher numbers of this group may have exercised this option, giving them more freedom to improve their human capital and financial situation allowing them, when they did decide to start a family, to be a better situation financially and socially to raise the child with more opportunities available than if they had a child younger and with less favorable economic options or conditions. Thus, less struggle, more time to focus on rearing the child, etc… (this is a quick and dirty cliff’s notes and I’m sure I’m leaving out some things - the link is there if you want to read it … the Wiki page has links to other resources and readings if you’re really interested)
This actually reminds me of a study I read regarding access to day care for young mothers. I forget the name of the study, but it yielded similar results IIRC - the study focused on a specific socio-economic group much like the one I described above - low income, single young mothers who opted to not have abortions. There were two or three types of day cares set up in these areas - one a regular day care with little to no educational focus outside of conventional age group education, the other focused on early exposure to education (alphabets, colors, shapes, etc…). IIRC, the latter had extended hours, I think the kids were there for something like 8 to 10 hrs or something like that while the former had normal (for the time, this was in the 70s and 80s I believe) hours, 6 hrs max I believe.
They measured success by high school graduation rates of the two groups, but they also controlled for the economic success of the mothers … I believe the mother’s of the latter group ended up making more money of the time span than the former group (stat. sig.) while the graduation rates among the kids was stat. insig.[/quote]
Negative correlation plus a super duper explanation to explain the correlation still doesn’t equal causation. I can think of dozens of things that have changed since 1973 and if pressed could provide an explanation as to why most of them might cause a decrease in crime.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
The problem with the argument you are making is that by the same logic any misrepresentation of any sort would make resulting sex sexual assault. And that could feasibly be extended to include any situation where someone believed something that wasn’t true, even if misrepresentation wasn’t intended. Dress nicely and she assumes you’re richer than you are: sexual assault. [/quote]
Admittedly, not the US, but still…
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.
When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.
Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.
Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not “a classical rape by force,” the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.
The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated,” they added.[/quote]
I don’t think the judges here have a defensible argument and the truth of the matter in this case probably has a lot to do with racial hatred. Luckily, it’s not in the US, but it sets a bad precedent anyways. People shouldn’t have sex with those they don’t know well, but if they do they should accept the fact that they don’t have complete and reliable information about their partner.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve never planned a one night stand.
Anyway, I’m just saying condoms suck. It’s like wearing a damn raincoat on your dick.
[/quote]
Rubbish…total rubbish. By your own admission you can’t remain interested in another person for more than a couple of months. You begin with your exit strategy and work back from there; one night, 8 weeks, what’s the difference. You can’t possibly believe you’ve even scratched the surface of another person in two months. Your SOP is shallow, adversarial and dripping with passive aggression. It is one thing for a person that is coming out of a divorce/bad breakup to behave this way while licking their wounds; another all together to adopt the approach as a lifestyle. How this gets by someone that has demonstrated such range and depth on other matters is beyond me. Your issue with condoms is an extension of your inability to reach a point of arousal beyond the physical.
Withdrawl of consent is sexual assault. If she says “stop” and you don’t, it’s sexual assault. If she says, “I’ll sleep with you, but only if you wear a condom” and you don’t, then she hasn’t consented to sex. Ergo, you’ve sexually assaulted her.
[/quote]
So if she lies about being on the pill is that sexual assault? What if she has implants or dyed her hair? What if she wears makeup and she’s so hideous without it that I wouldn’t have consented had I known?
