http://www.hisside.com/

Synopsis:

Criminalizing 'Reckless Sex'--Safeguard for Women or  New Way to Herd Men Into Jail?

Should men go to jail for having sex without a condom? Law professors Ian Ayres and Katherine Baker say yes. Under their highly-publicized "Reckless Sex" proposal, a "defendant would be guilty of reckless sexual conduct if, in a first sexual encounter with another particular person, the defendant had sexual intercourse without using a condom."

The penalty for the "guilty" man would be up to six months in jail. The authors say their proposal  would help increase condom use and the "quality of communication in first sexual encounters" and thus "reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease and decrease the incidence of acquaintance rape."

Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna opposes the "reckless sex" proposal, noting the gender double standard and also that the new law "gives the government unwarranted intrusion into our private lives" and will mean "women will be at greater risk for sexual assault because the focus will now be on condoms instead of consent."

My response:

Quote:
Criminalizing 'Reckless Sex'--Safeguard for Women or New Way to Herd Men Into Jail?

Should men go to jail for having sex without a condom? Law professors Ian Ayres and Katherine Baker say yes. Under their highly-publicized "Reckless Sex" proposal, a "defendant would be guilty of reckless sexual conduct if, in a first sexual encounter with another particular person, the defendant had sexual intercourse without using a condom."

The penalty for the "guilty" man would be up to six months in jail. The authors say their proposal would help increase condom use and the "quality of communication in first sexual encounters" and thus "reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease and decrease the incidence of acquaintance rape."

Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna opposes the "reckless sex" proposal, noting the gender double standard and also that the new law "gives the government unwarranted intrusion into our private lives" and will mean "women will be at greater risk for sexual assault because the focus will now be on condoms instead of consent."

MY RESPONSE:
The Female Condom

The central argument, if I understand it, is that a man can and should slip on a condom or be held CRIMINALLY liable for any problems. But, here's the rub, with a simple Google search I can show you how many organizations talk about female condoms, where to get them, and what you should also notice is this: Notice how in feminist sex education that female condoms are not mentioned? Why? My opinion is that it leaves the MAN with the responsibility for having the condom, and none of the responsibility for the woman. Once again the feminists prove they don't give a rats ass about women's health if it means responsibility for women or shifting the endless blame off of men.

The idea that MEN, and only men, should be held responsible for sexual "mishaps" is reprehensible. The female condom has been out for a LONG time (I heard of it more than a decade back). So, if a man doesn't have a condom, isn't it an equal question as to why the woman doesn't have a condom (male or female)?

This is just another way for a woman to have power over a man.

1) The premise is not based on passing of disease, as many women would also be jailed.
2) The premise is not about equal responsibility, because many women would be jailed.
3) The premise is not about rape, as this woman is talking about a woman who had consensual sex with a man while both knew he didn't have a male condom on.
4) This premise doesn't mention a female condom (convenient), and it should be asked if she has EVER written about women using them and, more importantly, where women can get them.
5) It's about extending a woman's power so that is she gets a disease, and a man is not wearing a male condom, he should be jailed.

The question then is if a woman gives a MAN a disease should SHE be jailed if she doesn't use a female condom?

Female condom sites for info:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-birth-control-15.xml

http://www.femalehealth.com/theproduct.html

http://www.avert.org/femcond.htm

Where to buy them (simple Google Search):

http://www.undercovercondoms.com/Condoms/Reality/87/Female-Condom.html

http://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/cvs/gateway/shelf?deptid=2609&;catid=2614&subcatid=2618

http://www.drugstore.com/templates/stdplist/default.asp?catid=36153&;aid=336161&aparam=xsp76823

So, as you see, they are VERY mainstream, NOT expensive, but don't get much press, don't get talked about much in sex-ed, and no one seems to be proposing a law that mirrors the one that this woman is proposing.

Half-truths are just untruths.

Steven

---

The question then is if a woman gives a MAN a disease should SHE be jailed if she doesn't use a female condom?

---

First of the end is POLYURITHANE (bad spelling).

Look it up.

I provided the links, do some research before you spout off.

Besides your sexism is already documented.  You sexually assaulted one guy and said that if a man came in your face you'd rip his penis off.

(oh, so YOUR juices on HIS/HER face ... it's "different" ... right?)

POINT BEING: it may be easier to put on a male condom, but that sidesteps the point:

These whack job feminazis want to jail men but ONLY MEN, for not wearing a condom ...

But not women for the same action.

That's "Womyn's Studies" thinking for you.

Steven

Ok, since you are delusional in your self justification I'll break it down for you real slow.  Stomp twice if I go to fast:

1) If I put my HAND on your crotch and you didn't permit it it's "Simple Sexual Assault".  If I were to grab your crotch and injure you it would be a more serious felony.

You KICKED a man in his genitals.  

Sorry, it's not "different" because you have a vagina versus a penis.

That's called .... EQUALITY.

2) if a man (or a woman) gives you oral sex your juices WILL be on their face.  Are you like 12 and don't know this?  Or just willfully ignorant?

Point being: it's not (again!) "different" for YOU.

And, how would you feel if a man ripped your vaginal lips or clitoris because your juice got on his face?

Would that be "ok" with you?  Doubt it.  

3) Wow I'm a "dick" ... whadda come back.  Did you practice that in front of a mirror, or just ask your smartest friend for a comeback?

Nothin' but love for ya.

Steven

I can understand that the female condom is uncomfortable (more so than the male one I'm guessing) and the male condom is easier... but if the woman is making the choice to have sex without the condom (and some women insist on not using a condom which frieghtens me) then the woman should be just as culpable.

if the man can be expected to carry around condoms (which he can't carry in his wallet by the way because it increases the risk of breakage, nor can he carry it in his back pocket... so where does he put it?) then it should be expected of the woman to carry at least one or two in her purse.

seriously. come on. you can keep them in that little discrete secret zipper pocket in your purse. you know.. the one designed specifically for you to hide your pads and tampons in. ya... put one or two in there.

it takes two to have sex, make them both responsible.

Gilby

-------
Yiddish: S'iz shver tsu zayn a Yid.
English: It's tough to be a Jew.

But, seriously, who was wrong?  In what way?  And what is your considered opinion on this?

Yes, I am interested.

Steven

i have to say that i agree that it should be the responsibility of both parties to insure that protection will be used and if either party neglects to mention an STD and something is transmitted then the responsible party should be held liable (MAN OR WOMAN).
remember ladies, the pill does not protect against STDs and i can name at least five women who got pregnant while on the pill or patch!

-------
"organized people are just too lazy to look for stuff!!"

This load of bullshit proves what I've said all along: feminists don't want equality, they want superiority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for equality of the sexes.
Equality of the sexes doesn't mean you say men are the cause of all the trouble in the world and the "womyn" bitches are the forward thinking solution to the problem and should get all the rights and none of the responsibility. It means that we say both sexes have all the rights and all the responsibilities of the other sex.

Sorry for the length and quite possibly anger. Fucktards make me mad.

---

From Hisside.com

http://www.hisside.com/

Synopsis:

Criminalizing 'Reckless Sex'--Safeguard for Women or  New Way to Herd Men Into Jail?

Should men go to jail for having sex without a condom? Law professors Ian Ayres and Katherine Baker say yes. Under their highly-publicized "Reckless Sex" proposal, a "defendant would be guilty of reckless sexual conduct if, in a first sexual encounter with another particular person, the defendant had sexual intercourse without using a condom."  

The penalty for the "guilty" man would be up to six months in jail. The authors say their proposal  would help increase condom use and the "quality of communication in first sexual encounters" and thus "reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease and decrease the incidence of acquaintance rape."

Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna opposes the "reckless sex" proposal, noting the gender double standard and also that the new law "gives the government unwarranted intrusion into our private lives" and will mean "women will be at greater risk for sexual assault because the focus will now be on condoms instead of consent."

 

My response:

Quote:  
Criminalizing 'Reckless Sex'--Safeguard for Women or New Way to Herd Men Into Jail?  

Should men go to jail for having sex without a condom? Law professors Ian Ayres and Katherine Baker say yes. Under their highly-publicized "Reckless Sex" proposal, a "defendant would be guilty of reckless sexual conduct if, in a first sexual encounter with another particular person, the defendant had sexual intercourse without using a condom."  

The penalty for the "guilty" man would be up to six months in jail. The authors say their proposal would help increase condom use and the "quality of communication in first sexual encounters" and thus "reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease and decrease the incidence of acquaintance rape."  

Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna opposes the "reckless sex" proposal, noting the gender double standard and also that the new law "gives the government unwarranted intrusion into our private lives" and will mean "women will be at greater risk for sexual assault because the focus will now be on condoms instead of consent."  

 

 
MY RESPONSE:
 The Female Condom  

The central argument, if I understand it, is that a man can and should slip on a condom or be held CRIMINALLY liable for any problems. But, here's the rub, with a simple Google search I can show you how many organizations talk about female condoms, where to get them, and what you should also notice is this: Notice how in feminist sex education that female condoms are not mentioned? Why? My opinion is that it leaves the MAN with the responsibility for having the condom, and none of the responsibility for the woman. Once again the feminists prove they don't give a rats ass about women's health if it means responsibility for women or shifting the endless blame off of men.  

The idea that MEN, and only men, should be held responsible for sexual "mishaps" is reprehensible. The female condom has been out for a LONG time (I heard of it more than a decade back). So, if a man doesn't have a condom, isn't it an equal question as to why the woman doesn't have a condom (male or female)?  

This is just another way for a woman to have power over a man.  

1) The premise is not based on passing of disease, as many women would also be jailed.  
2) The premise is not about equal responsibility, because many women would be jailed.  
3) The premise is not about rape, as this woman is talking about a woman who had consensual sex with a man while both knew he didn't have a male condom on.  
4) This premise doesn't mention a female condom (convenient), and it should be asked if she has EVER written about women using them and, more importantly, where women can get them.  
5) It's about extending a woman's power so that is she gets a disease, and a man is not wearing a male condom, he should be jailed.  

The question then is if a woman gives a MAN a disease should SHE be jailed if she doesn't use a female condom?  

Female condom sites for info:  

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-birth-control-15.xml

http://www.femalehealth.com/theproduct.html

http://www.avert.org/femcond.htm

Where to buy them (simple Google Search):  

http://www.undercovercondoms.com/Condoms/Reality/87/Female-Condom.html

http://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/cvs/gateway/shelf?deptid=2609&;catid=2614&subcatid=2618

http://www.drugstore.com/templates/stdplist/default.asp?catid=36153&;aid=336161&aparam=xsp76823

So, as you see, they are VERY mainstream, NOT expensive, but don't get much press, don't get talked about much in sex-ed, and no one seems to be proposing a law that mirrors the one that this woman is proposing.  

Half-truths are just untruths.  
 
Steven

---