-- Posted by LSBeene at 1:40 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 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 -- Posted by cpjcjhsh at 1:45 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 Quote: from LSBeene at 3:40 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 The question then is if a woman gives a MAN a disease should SHE be jailed if she doesn't use a female condom? Absolutely, you are right.  Wow, I'm actually so glad you said that, because I never would have thought of that.  I'm actually like worshiping you right now.  If only I had points to donate, I totally would. -- Posted by Empirical at 1:47 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 Why does the woman have to stick some plastic stuff up her vagina (which have a metal band around the end) which are extremely uncomfortable, if you tell me they are not then i must ask you how the FUCK do you know?when it is much more easy for a guy to slide one right over it. -- Posted by LSBeene at 1:53 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 Hollor0006, 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 -- Posted by Empirical at 1:57 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 I'm not arguing the fact that the rest of it is sexist or whatever. That is not what im talking about, i am talking about the fact that it is much easier and much more convienent for a guy to use a condom, the female ones hurt. Also i was not aware that kicking someone was sexual assult Also i would not expect my "juices" to be on anyones face, nor would i get pleasure out of that. ALSO i think your a dick -- Posted by LSBeene at 2:03 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 Hollor0006, 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 -- Posted by Gilby at 2:49 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 you can't pick on the guys for that. 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 -- Posted by cpjcjhsh at 4:44 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 Offence intended, all of your arguments are either wrong, suck in general, and/or are childish. -- Posted by LSBeene at 6:36 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 And no offense taken. But, seriously, who was wrong?  In what way?  And what is your considered opinion on this? Yes, I am interested. Steven -- Posted by samantha123 at 11:56 am on Mar. 4, 2005 I believe if two people want to have sex, then they should use protection, either from the male or the female, or both to ensure even more protection!            I don't believe one should be "jailed" for not using a condom, it is a personal choice, but in my opinion, you should always use protection if engaging in any sort of sexual activity to prevent a pregnancy from occuring, or any type of STD's from happening either!            Also, you should always carry protection with you, their should be no excuse as to not wearing condoms, such as "It doesn't feel right" "It's not the same" etc.. well, when you later discover that your either pregnant with some guys baby, or have some STD, then you will have a different attitude upon you!            True, guys might not be able to carry a condom with them in their pockets or wallets because of the many risks out their, but women should be able to atleast have one or two stored in their purse, just incase they should decide to engage in a sexual activity later on! Men should also have them in their rooms in a drawer or some place safe where it can't get damaged or anything!            Fact is, their is no excuse as to not using protection when having sex! If you are that thickheaded to believe that you can't get pregnant the first time with no protection or contact STD's, then your too immature to have sex to begin with! You should always use protection when doing ANYTHING sexual, no excuses! -- Posted by threnodygrey at 6:39 pm on Mar. 7, 2005 This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life.  Let's face facts, if the guy didn't wear a condom - assuming the sex was consensual - then obviously his partner agreed to it.  That'd make her just as irresponsible as him.  My boy and I don't use condoms because I have a latex allergy and I object to using lamb/goat skin condoms on a moral basis ('tis the former vegetarian in me).  Why should he go to jail because he doesn't want me to go to the hospital, huh?  I'm on the patch - end of story.  We're both disease free and there won't be any dropping out of university - at least not because I'm pregnant and we'll have to get shitty jobs to take care of it. -- Posted by morrisonsMYmuse at 8:14 am on Mar. 26, 2005 that was very well researched. i'm impressed. you presented both sides of the argument and then your own opinion so woo for you! 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! -- Posted by Grounded at 2:31 pm on April 15, 2005 To Supporters of the "Reckless Sex" Bullshit: #1, what the fuck gives you the right to dictate what is or is not legal in consensual intercourse? #2, why the fuck are ONLY men supposed to be responsible? Equality of the sexes should dictate that both individuals carry protection. Isn't it a bit demeaning to women to assume they're incapable of having and using protection? 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. -- Posted by AlKiEE at 6:24 pm on June 4, 2005 Quote: from LSBeene at 1:40 pm on Mar. 3, 2005 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 is ridiculoius -- Posted by brummbaer456 at 10:32 am on June 26, 2005 This bill sounds like they're trying to make it illegal to be stupid. As was stated earlier, obviously if the sex was consensual, both parties were fully aware of whether or not a condom was being worn, so both parties are responsible for the consequences. This bill is prejudiced if it specifically targets the male, and it has pretty serious implications about women's roles in responsible sexual behavior. (basically it's saying that men are the only ones capable, therefore the only ones responsible for ensuring safe sexual behavior. while women's lib people may view this as a sexist bill, when viewed appropriately, it's actually pretty chauvinistic) if any bill gets passed, which i don't think it should, cuz the whole idea is just assenine, that bill would have to carry equal penal [penile? ;) ] consequences for both/all genders. -- Posted by Maxxx at 9:44 pm on July 3, 2005 If we all go to jail for not using condoms, there wouldn't be enough room in the jails to keep us all -- Posted by imitasian at 4:14 pm on July 12, 2005 Quote: from Maxxx at 11:44 pm on July 3, 2005 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 -- Posted by Steeves at 1:40 pm on Sep. 6, 2005 Feminists  always  blame  men.  They'd  blame  a man  for  the  rain  if they  could.  I  hate  the feminazi.  I  wish  more  men would  challenge their  power.  Unfortunately,  they  get  away  with  anything.  That's  so  typical.  When  all's  well,  they blame  men.  When   there's a  crisis,  they  expect us  to  play  hero  and  save  them.  I  wouldn't  lift  finger  to  help  a  feminist.  They  probably hate me  just   because  I'm  a  man. -- Posted by slide 86 at 11:24 pm on Oct. 9, 2005 It takes two to tango. 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. -- Posted by courage at 7:37 pm on Oct. 14, 2005 so smart to think of this but your sexual partner can say if they will allow u not to wear a condom but then i just thought it would stop alot of diseases so im not sure      damn i dunno -- Posted by purplefreak at 9:57 am on Nov. 2, 2005 I think the guy should wear a condom because it's the simplest most effective contraceptive but they shouldn't be put in jail for not and the woman should take some responsibility for not having sex with a guy without a condom. -- Posted by Poetyxes at 6:26 am on Nov. 10, 2005 wow i can't believe how one sided that "research" thing was. And I agree its a mutual responsibility. -- Posted by Steeves at 11:49 am on Nov. 12, 2005 Feminists  are  man-haters.  Not  all  of  them,  just  the  majority.   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 -- Posted by DiamondRancher1 at 1:15 pm on Nov. 16, 2005 craziness. why have sex in the first place you dumb feminists! that's so stupid. feminists suck, why wouldn't you like men? they're cute and most of them are alright. -- Posted by LSBeene at 3:33 pm on April 10, 2007 Just got back from Iraq and wanted to look up this thread to see if it had developed. Steven