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?
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
Steven
Join the Men's Rights Movement and fight the Anti-Male Bias.
www.mensactivism.org www.trueequality.com www.everyman.org www.standyourground.com www.safe4all.org
It is the responsibilty of BOTH PARTNERS to practice safe sex. It's just stupid to try to put it all on the guy. The girl is still decieding to have sex, is she not?
I hate femminists.
If we all go to jail for not using condoms, there wouldn't be enough room in the jails to keep us all
ahahahahahaha! so true
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
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.
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!
701 users online 
225350 members 1299 active today Advertise Here
701 users online 225350 members 1299 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
