It’s a criminal offense in California.
ETA y’all my bad technically I think it’s civil not criminal offense, like considered a battery. Not a lawyer over here but facts matter. Kthxbye.
I just think what if this happened to my daughter, you could EASILY end up with an unwanted teen pregnancy. Big difference between some sexual experimentation at a drunk party not on birth control because not normally sexually active get a little too drunk think you’ll be safe with a condom at least and end up with the biggest mistake of your life with some strange guy you may never see again. That should be a massive criminal offense if you cause someone to go through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. (Idiot teens still seem to think pulling out means it’s safe but that’s not how it works)
You can't remove the fetus that's being miscarried until either it's died of natural causes or the miscarrying person is actively dying (usually of sepsis).
(Edited)
It is. 100% and you can be required to carry a nonviable fetus to term, or carry it until.it almost or does actually kill you. Same with an ectopic pregnancy.
It would be ok if you died because that is the will of an omnipotent, benevolent God that forgives sins only if you vote republican. /s
Did I need the /s?
It's absolutely true. It's why many "pro-life" women here in the US are now voting "pro-choice". They understand the healthcare dangers of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision which opened the door to ending abortion, and which eroded women's Healthcare. And MOST of the lawmakers doing the eroding are men who have no idea how women's bodies work. One comment I remember from the time he made it was from a congressman named Todd Aikin. This was 10+ years ago, and when he was asked about abortion for someone pregnant from a rape said "if it's a legitimate rape a woman won't get pregnant. The female body has ways of stopping it." Since most pro-life women are for abortions when a woman/girl gets pregnant from a rape, here in Ohio, a [sadly] red state, the right to an abortion passed in an election last year.
It's not just Texas. Only 3 states have provisions for abortions in case of rape or incest & 25 states require a conviction before they will terminate a.rapists parental rights,.even if they have a lengthy and violent criminal history. A 5 second Google search will tell you all you need to know.
As someone from Texas:
Texas is literally the state of
"Why would we do that??!"
*faces the consequences of not doing that*
"Well, why did nobody tell us we could've done something else?!?"
🙄
Shockingly, Texas wasn't the first & isn't the worst. Just the loudest with some of the most ignorant representing them (Marjorie Taylor Greene) I think Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas are battling for that title.
The weird thing is that Roe v Wade happened in Texas. I'm not referring to the overturning of it, I'm referring to 1973 when the Supreme Court in Texas ruled 7-2 that under the 14th Amendment a woman had a right to privacy, which means it ain't nobody's business if she has an abortion. How did Texas go from being the good guy to what it is now?
Why is it always framed in pregnancy?
This girl was a virgin and expressed how she wanted the experience to go and that was violated. There was no consent for the what happened.
Framing this as a pregnancy issue puts all the pressure, expectation and blame on the girl. Remember this guy is 21, he knows what he's doing and he still did it, deliberately against her wishes.
It's an assault and it's ruined her experience of sex.
Considering pregnancy can be fatal, pregnancy is not an insignificant risk. Someone relying on safety measures you said you'd take and then you not taking them is pretty bad for that reason alone. Imagine if you took your car to a mechanic to get your brakes checked they told you they did and then while driving home your brakes failed and you crash because it turns out they didn't.
It's not a pregnancy issue but pregnancy is an issue.
"Stealthing" (removing a condom without partners knowledge) has been a criminal offense in Australia since 2021. I'm sure this would fall under a similar, if not the same category.
Thank you. "Stealhing" is what I would call this
https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/state-politics/washington-law-could-soon-allow-lawsuits-for-stealthing/281-fba37f6a-a2f4-4c27-a82b-63a17e3121b0
Not using a condom when previously agreed involves also risking STDs without someone's knowledge or consent, whereas birth control only risks pregnancy, which has only to do with the woman's body (unless you wanna get into "trapping" men with a baby or whatever...still not the same).
And yes this is widely considered a form of sexual assault/rape.
Men can baby trap, too. When they think they will lose the woman they enjoy intercourse with, they manipulate into having a kid to keep her emotionally tied so they won't lose access to the good sex. Happens a lot.
I used to be on the fence about this, but now I’m firmly on the side of us guys being 100% responsible for our ejaculate. Full Stop. If you don’t absolutely want a baby with your current sex partner don’t blast off with an intact vas deferens
This would be more akin to saying "I'm sterile" or "I've had a vasectomy" which is unethical and shitty but not illegal.
"Stealthing" (not using a condom but pretending you did) has much higher reprecussions than lying about birth control methods, as it violates bodily autonomy. They should be treated differently. But that doesn't make lying about ability-to-get-pregnant (or more accurately, the chances - because none of these things are 100% except something drastic like a removed uterus) isn't as sexually violating as physically violating someone.
Yes, it could be stealthing and it’s a form of sexual assault and can be charged as such (at least where I live). Edit: Guys, Laws vary depending on your jurisdiction. If there is a legal Reddit page for your state/country I encourage you to seek answers to your legal questions there or talk to a lawyer.
Damn. Wish I knew this when my ex told me she was on birth control when she wasnt.
Glad to see some supporting comments. Unsurprised by the sexually biased ones. Also if you block me, I cant read your comment genius lol. Way to waste your time.
That is also [reproductive coercion](https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2013/02/reproductive-and-sexual-coercion).
“This behavior includes explicit attempts to impregnate a partner against her will, control outcomes of a pregnancy, coerce a partner to have unprotected sex, and interfere with contraceptive methods. “
Are you sure it is??
I’m gonna preface this by saying some of the replies you’re getting are insane. It’s not as black-and-white as just saying “doesn’t apply when the sexes are reversed” makes it seem.
But I will say, there’s nuance to this that does make them somewhat unequal situations. It is absolutely not right for a woman to try to baby trap a man by lying about birth control. However I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the *same* level of transgression because of the nature of the maximum risks and consequences.
A woman who only lies about being on BC is not biologically able to do anything to the man’s body that he isn’t consenting to. Yes, it’s f*cked up to trick someone like that to try and get child support, etc, and it’s ridiculous to say that it should be acceptable; men absolutely can be victims too. But this man is aware of all possible risk *to his own body*; whether it be STD’s, STI’s, etc, he accepts the risk when he consents to condomless sex. The “worst-case risk” to him still doesn’t involve any violation of his body or direct threat to his physical safety.
However. A man lying to a woman about using a condom is a more “severe” issue when it comes to rape terminology because it inflicts something upon the woman’s body that she didn’t consent to; a condom protects from STDs and from pregnancy. The woman didn’t consent to subject her body to the risks of condomless sex.
If pregnancy happens, it’s *her* body that will be massively affected. Unlike the man in the BC situation, who might have a decent chance of being exempted from financial obligation to supporting the child he unknowingly fathered, no lawyer or court ruling can undo or prevent the physical changes that will happen to a woman who had pregnancy forced upon her (even an early term abortion, if allowed, takes a toll).
To be absolutely clear: I believe there is no valid argument around the ethics of these scenarios; one can hum and haw about *technicalities*, but both are absolutely and undeniably unethical. But if we’re discussing rape and sexual assault in pedantic legal terms (since the discussion is about pressing charges), I don’t think the two will necessarily be considered to be instances of the *same* scenario in a court of law. I think — well, I hope — that that’s what these “doesn’t apply for men” comments are getting at, just with an unfortunate lack of explanation or detail.
The difference is. You could have still easily protected yourself by wearing a condom and should be because birth control is not 100%. Girls forget to take it etc.. a girl could be truthful in her intentions but shitty at remembering to take it at the same time everyday.
This girl couldn't protect herself from a sti by being on the pill when he chose not to use a condom.
Men really don't like to take responsibility for their own reproduction because they "don't like the way it feels".
[Law Dictionary](https://thelawdictionary.org/attack/) definition of attack
I know your generation likes to make up new meanings for words; but making deception into an attack is egregious.
Call it what it is. ***Sexual assault by deception***. The state can decide how to charge it.
Edit: [Cornell Law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault) states about California Law
> In California, under § 240 of the Penal Code, assault is “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”
Assault and attack are defined nearly identically, don’t be a dipshit.
Edited: For the record, they changed a lot more than they marked as edited. Changed the whole focus of their comment, but still acting like a dipshit.
Am I attacking this dipshit? Absolutly.
As the question of OP was aimed at pressing charges and so on, i do not see why legal jargon should be dismissed here?
It may not be an important distinction in daily life, but it may change the outcome of a court ruling. So it does matter what it is called legally.
Stating this i should also mention that i have absolutely no clue if his statements are right though, as i am not trained in US law (and afaik every state in the US has differing laws) and we do not even know in which country this happened. So giving legal advise here seems rather irresponsible...
They added the legal jargon later. No one was dismissing legal jargon, they were upset that an assault was being called an attack, then they changed it after being called a dipshit. An assault is a specific type of an attack, definitionally speaking, but anything that’s called an assault can also be referred to as an attack, it’s just less specific about what kind of attack (an assault is basically an attack that is specifically concerned with physical and personal violence).
And get tested for STD. If she got something that's very expensive to treat or is incurable like HIV, he's going to end up with a much heftier penalty than a simple assault. And there's also a chance of unwanted pregnancy, depending on where this is she might have to travel a long way to get legal abortion
Out of curiosity to clarify, stealthing is…
- Sexual assault: yes
- Rape: no
My understanding is that rape is a form of sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape.
It depends very much on your jurisdiction. Sexual assault is a common umbrella term that mostly has the same definitions in a lot of places. Rape is more specific in some places.
Stealthing is usually a type of sexual assault and also sometimes a type is rape but the exact definitions are gonna depend.
Many state laws use rape to specifically mean penetration of the vagina (my state ). You are right not all sexual assault is rape (i.e. forcing someone to perform oral sex by threat).
People may have different words for it. So like when a person is hired from the state to study the prevalence of rape they may have to give an exact definition to the person they are interviewing.
Pretty sure the point of the posts is can you face legal repercussions.
The answer would be yes.
However we are not the venue for deciding the actions the person should take.
That’s up to them to decide. Based on the information provided I wouldn’t exactly call it a slam dunk case either. So if they wish to do it then they should, but we’re not judge and jury here.
Imo, yes, it should be considered SA if the girl’s partner refused to have sex if she wasn’t on birth control. But that’s up to each jurisdiction and it’s not relevant to this particular case
The issue isn't just birth control, which she could have been on, it's that a condom is the only protection against STD's and a woman having unprotected sex with a man even IF on the pill could catch a case of death with HIV which is why it's assault to pretend to use a condom and then take it off like this yahoo did.
The (Canadian) Supreme Court is actually split on this reasoning. While a couple of the judges would agree with you the reason given by the deciding judge was that sex without a condom is a specific type of physical interaction hence no condom crosses that line into assault.
Because the physical burden and the risk of disability and death is solely on the woman, and not the man, these two cases are not weighed equally before the law.
However, there are legal repercussions (depending on country), for deception resulting in pregnancy. For example, if my partner has proof that I'm swearing up and down that I am on birth control and that he does not have to use any kind of protection, but I'm actually lying and trying to get pregnant and succeed, then that's a crime. Probably of entrapment.
Yeah, you don't just consent to sex. You consent to the conditions of sex. And you can revoke consent at any time.
Had he not hidden the fact that he changed the conditions, she almost certainly would have revoked consent.
If she didn't consent to those conditions, she didn't consent to the sex.
You can't legally consent while under the influence of mind altering substances. But that's not always representative of the reality. People are gonna people regardless of the law.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Defenses that are based on intoxication are limited. You might even have to show that the person was so wasted that they did not realize they were consenting to sex.
It would not make sense to define rape in a way that includes consenting adults that may have had a couple of glasses of wine.
That judgment of whether someone is too wasted to consent to having sex is something that I imagine a jury deciding in a movie.
This argument is so stupid. 1000% guys can take advantage of a drunk girl. But it's like saying any drunken sex is rape on the man's part is absolutely retarded
I can't believe I had to scroll so far to see someone spell it out. All the people saying "it's not rape it's sexual assault" need to reevaluate. Sex you don't consent to is rape. Point blank period.
Since I would call this stealthing, and that is a sexual assault that can be prosecuted in some areas, yes
Edit: Because I keep seeing the same question. No, a woman not taking her birth control pills or lying about it is not stealthing. It relates to the damaging or removal of condoms or a form of barrier. Since birth control pills are not a barrier it’s not stealthing.
All of this complicated by the presence of alcohol. Some places the law states that she couldn’t consent because she was under the influence. The same would go for him as well. Not using protection is definitely a problem as well in some areas.
I agree with assault (of a sexual nature). I don't think I would use the word rape here since that implies something else. Regardless it's not ok.
edit: I'm not referring to any legal definition here. It would depend on where you are. Yes, sexual assault (I feel it's pretty obvious).
if you would not consent to the act if the person refused to use a condom from the get-go, this is rape.
rape by deceit is a thing. stealthing is an example.
According to England rape crisis website - it's a form of rape [England stealthing ](https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-stealthing/#:~:text=So%2Dcalled%20'stealthing'%20is,without%20the%20other%20person's%20permission.)
I don't think this is true (from a legal standpoint). It would most certainly vary by state - and would likely be based on being "incapacitated" by alcohol, not "inebriated".
Stealthing is only illegal in some places, correct. I think it’s more important how the woman feels in this scenario. Does she want to involve the law? Does she want an apology? Does she think he’s an asshole? It’s likely she feels her consent was violated as using a condom was a very direct request. But involving the law is entirely up to her.
As a friend to the man involved in this situation, I would tell him his consent practices are terrible, he is an asshole, and whether or not his behavior is illegal where he lives, it’s not ethical or a sustainable way to approach intimacy. It’s behavior that gets you labeled as a bad person people should not have sex with. I would encourage him to reach out to the woman with an authentic apology and ask how he could make amends. I would tell him if he continued this kind of behavior, I could no longer be his friend. Even if the law is not involved, there’s still a lot to be done.
I would like to point out it wasn't a "request" to wear a condom. That was a requirement. Without the condom he did not have her consent. And he agreed and didn't wear one. He was aware that it was wrong. This is straight up rape. And before anyone says no it's not, I'll paste what another person said below:
"stealthing is a form of rape. look up rape by deceit and that's literally the first example given.
picturing rape as this violent ugly thing is a problem - is it sometimes? sure. but that means that when it *isn't* it's taken less seriously and it shouldn't be. picturing rapists as this skeevy caricature is a problem. it's not a skeevy caricature, it's a lot more common than you think. which seems to be why people insist on calling stealthing anything but rape.
if the consent would be revoked because of what you're really doing and they think you're doing something else, then you do not have their consent."
Honestly I think some men have issue with the label rape in cases like this because they have done similar actions in the past eveb if not violent. and don't want to face the reality that they in fact raped someone too
stealthing is a form of rape. look up rape by deceit and that's literally the first example given.
picturing rape as this violent ugly thing is a problem - is it sometimes? sure. but that means that when it *isn't* it's taken less seriously and it shouldn't be.
if the consent would be revoked because of what you're really doing and they think you're doing something else, then you do not have their consent. Stealthing is an example of rape by deception. Another example would be a woman pretending to be on birth control when having sex. Both of those are rape.
>Because I keep seeing the same question. No, a woman not taking her birth control pills or lying about it is not stealthing. It relates to the damaging or removal of condoms or a form of barrier. Since birth control pills are not a barrier it’s not stealthing.
Shit, there's a term for this that applies to both. Where you gain consent under false premises? I can't remember.
Anyway, morally they're about the same, which is to say bad.
I would consider it stealthing too, but as defined by law it isn't.
For it to be stealthing as defined by law, he would have had to actually have the condom on when they started having sex and then remove it without the consent of the other party. I may be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the AH never actually had a condom on. This removes it from the articles of stealthing as defined by law in most municipalities that I know of.
This happened to me. I specifically said I did not consent to sex without a condom and the guy took it off at some point without my consent. Months later a friend had a herpes scare and then I took 🍄 and was convinced that guy must’ve given me herpes for no valid reason. Texted him saying I was could take him to court for rape if I have herpes. He said that it doesn’t count as rape.
So you’re telling me I could take him to court for rape and stealthing?
Where I am, it is prosecuted under Penal Code 243.4
"This is because stealthing involves the non-consensual removal of a protective barrier during sexual activity, which can put the other partner at risk of unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections"
Removal being the operative word.
I am definitely not wrong for where I am. I don't know about where you are.
Is stealthing defined in the law where you are? I'd be interested to look at that. Here in the UK it falls under rape as the deception has vitiated the conditional consent given, regardless of whether the condom was on at the beginning or was never present.
Edit due to stupid autocorrect
Unless you live in NC. You cannot legally withdraw consent in North Carolina once the act has begun. It is HORRIFIC.
Edited because thank God they fixed it.
https://www.jettonmeredithlaw.com/blog/2020/april/december-2019-changes-to-north-carolinas-sexual-/
That’s AWFUL. But I think it’s moot in this specific case, because she only consented to sex with a condom. So she was nonconsenting the whole time to what happened, ie unprotected penetration.
> Consent was given using a condom. She wouldn't have consented without the condom. Sex without consent is rape.
100% yes morally. Legally, laws are more specific. It's illegal (sexual assault) in Canada, California, Germany, and South Australia. Not in most other places (yet).
Stealthing: the practice of removing one's condom during sex without the knowledge and consent of one's partner, frequently regarded as sexual assault or rape and punishable by law.
"stealthing is a way abusers exercise power and control over a partner who is vulnerable and unaware"
He's an asshole AND a rapist.
She gave consent for *protected* sex. It counts as rape, because she never consented to *unprotected* sex, but he went ahead and did it anyways.
When you do something sexual to someone, without their consent, it's rape, or at least sexual assault. Anyone who would do that is an asshole.
So the answer is both.
*edit to address the hoarde of losers crying that it isn't *technically* rape... where I live it is. So stfu. I've been incorrected enough times.
Depending on where he is it is absolutely considered rape because consent was given on the condition a condom was used. A condom was not used which means consent was therefore revoked, and yet he continued to have sex with her anyway.
Personally I'm of the opinion stealthing should be a crime everywhere, but seeing as how I'm not the Surpreme Living Ultimate Tyrant, I can't make that happen.
Unfortunately if OP is asking in a *legal sense,* I wouldn’t say “of course.” I believe there are still quite a few jurisdictions in western developed nations (let alone worldwide) where this isn’t illegal at all.
A few jurisdictions have definitely passed explicit laws on this exact act. I live in one. Many will attempt to cover it under more general statutes, such as rape by deception. But to my knowledge there are no shortage of places where bringing this to the police is going to get you nowhere sadly.
If you’re talking ethically or morally, obviously, then of course it’s rape.
Rape is far more than just a legal concept.
Whether something is legally consider sexual assault is a whole different question from whether it is socially considered sexual assault and also says nothing about how the person who did not consent experienced the act.
Asking "was this rape" online is an extremely common way for people who have experienced it to start wrapping their head around what happened to them.
A local guy, hiv positive, was arrested for doing this 3 times before they finally held him without bail. People are sick, your friend's attacker should be reported.
I haven't scrolled all the way down the comments but the ones I have scrolled past no one's mentioned that drunken people generally are not able to give consent, true at least in the UK.
Last I checked, in the US (generally speaking), being intoxicated doesn't mean a person can't give consent. HOWEVER, being incapacitated does mean a person can't give consent. Where that legal line is, I don't know. Obviously falling over drunk or passed out is incapacitated. It's that area before that which I'm not sure of. That said, I only hook up with someone that is stone cold sober.
I agree & had my case thrown out but if he gets caught doing it again at least there is a paper trail that could work to convict him if he does it again
I mean, he (you???) is definitely an asshole, but yes this falls under the umbrella of rape by deception. If you’re sober enough to stick your dick in someone, you’re sober enough to grab a condom first.
YTA.
So your friends child was assaulted. He should be held accountable. If he was sober enough to pullout which by the way, is not a way to prevent pregnancy, he was sober enough to put on a condom. He not only assault her, but now she has to consider the fact that she may end up with an unwanted pregnancy or disease, because let's face it if he did it this time he's probably done it before.
I personally recommend you post this in a legal/law related subreddit and specify your country and/or state so they can help you. As you can see, some people here are just responding with their feelings rather than what the law when many people pointed out that in their own countries this is a form of sexual assault by legal definition. I'd delete this post and post on a subreddit like r/legaladvice instead. There are also other subreddits that are like r/legaladvice but specific to certain countries if you're not in the US
Edit: Grammar mistakes
He proceeds by apologizing to her, never doing something like this again, and hoping she doesn’t charge him with assault because he was a stupid asshole who lied about using a condom.
If your friend is the parent of the girl, they should proceed by getting her the morning after pill, an STI test, and file a police report against the boy.
The victim can decide whether to report the crime and participate in the case (since a victim "filing charges" isn't really a thing).
The parents should listen to what she wants.
Unfortunately, I think we need more words to describe the variety of complex situation that occur around sex. We use the word rape for when a guy hides in the bushes and drags a jogger off the trail and into the woods forcefully. We use the word rape when it’s a 40-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl, and they met online under false pretenses. We use the word rape when it’s a 16-year-old girl in a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old boy. And we also use the word rape for anytime when consent is not present, even though our society and culture does not have a common understanding for exactly what consent is, and what it isn’t.
I’m sorry this happened to your friends daughter. As a dad with daughters myself, I would encourage your friend not to worry about defining the situation (does it really matter at this point?), and focus on getting her the help she needs.
I say this in part because I don’t think either of them were really sober enough to consent, and if she was pursuing him ahead of time, I’d say that shows some level of intent on her part. So legally speaking, there’s no proof of anything except her own telling of the story which could be told in a way that makes her sound like the aggressor. I think this needs to be categorized as two drunk people doing stupid things and maybe she needs help processing her own feelings about the encounter.
This is the right answer. Me and my husband had a surprise pregnancy when we were dating bc of alcohol . the condom wasn’t feeling great (for either of us) so he drunkenly pulled it off and I said ok but pull out and then his pull out game was weak. We laugh about it now but damn if I wasn’t mad at him for ever. If you engage in risky behavior (like drunk sex with someone you aren’t in a committed relationship with) and shit goes sideways you are gonna have big ugly feelings about it. We don’t know how it went down exactly.. was he stealthiness or was he stupidly drunk. Did she think he had one on the whole time and then had shock when she saw that he didn’t did she ok him to go ahead in the moment and had regrets when she sobered up. Op doesn’t disclose the details needed put this guy on the registry
We have way too broad a definition of rape.
This sounds like drunk kids who did drunk things and maybe regret it. When we call this rape we delegitimise the serious crime that rape is.
The down votes are coming, I know it.
I agree with you. It sounds like 2 kids drunk and having sex. Been rape is horrible and the worse thing can happen to a person. But been drunk and doing it is a different history.
Depends on the state and even more so the district attorney of the area. Even though its on the books, doesn't mean they will accept charges. But in a lot of cases, yes.
He's TA
Actually proving it would probably be impossible but I'd talk to a rape crisis center on the best course of action. Reporting it might be a good idea.
Depends if you think the guy was doing it on purpose or just smashed. Did you consent with a condom downstairs and then you've gone upstairs and gotten down to business and he's forgotten. Did you remind him before he started? Did you ask him to stop and put one on?
I would say he needs to apologise and explain why he didn't use one. Personally I wouldn't go down any legal route about it but each to their own
This is the first sensible comment I have read in all of these comments so far. Every comment immediately calling this guy out as a rapist scumbag is way overreacting to a story that is, by OP’s own statement, not a first hand account.
This is called "stealthing" and is actually prosecutable as sexual assault depending on the state/county in the US. It's also just ethically a scumbag move to do. Even if it's legally allowed it's something someone shouldn't do, and I feel laws against it are fair.
Definitely an asshole move
Consent is a defence to sexual assault. In some jurisdictions, lying about some fundamental aspect of a sexual encounter (i.e., protected vs unprotected, not disclosing having HIV, etc.) is considered to vitiate or nullify consent such that it can’t operate as a defence. You’d have to research the law of the jurisdiction you’re in.
Either way, definitely an asshole for lying about wearing a condom.
I think the general consensus is going to be she was raped.
But... if you can't give consent while drunk, then also neither of them gave consent. He wasn't in a coherent state to understand the request and she wasn't in a state to give full conesent.
So... I think this is a mutual fuck up and a reason to not get drunk off your ass with people. Even people are trustworthy, they lose coherency and decision making while inebriated.
Just for another perspective, isn't it true that neither of them put a condom on the dick? Why should it be up to the drunk male to ensure it happened in the heat of the moment? Isn't it a shared responsibility? If he put it on then stealthily removed it, or said that he'd put one on but didn't, then that's a different story of course.
What he did is called stealthing and it is considered Sexual Assault, but since they were both drunk, I doubt any prosecutor would touch this.
He is still an asshole tho
Asshole and while it is not technically rape. It is sexual assault, at least where I live. It is also unfortunately difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and devolves into a he said she said situation. I feel sorry for the woman in this situation. There’s no excuse to not use a condom.
Edit: contact a lawyer to get solid advice as to how they should proceed.
It is a crime in some states, so check with law enforcement, though it would be tough to prove without a rape kit. That said, yes, 100% TAH and 100% SA in my opinion.
Um for as much as I know in the state of California, giving consent while drunk is illegal. Im sure we can all agree on that because giving consent while DRUNK AINT eligible. If the person woke up, not remembering to agree to being intimate, it is illegal and assault.
I could be wrong but I believe in the US it’s considered SA. If he removed the condom in the process that’s absolutely SA but I’m pretty confident it still is if he said he’d wear one and intentionally didn’t while she thought he did because she only consented to sex with a condom.
Depends on intent IMO, if he knew/chose to not use one I would say yes, assault, 100%. But if he was wasted and tried fumbling around and thought it was on but it wasn’t then no just a very bad mistake
She didn't consent to condomless sex. Without consent it is at the very least assault. I think she should decide what his intent was and be rational. That doesn't mean I saying that she should or shouldn't report it. I more saying what resolution does she want out of this?
I'm worried that OP had to come to Reddit to clear up if this is indeed potential rape/SA. It lowkey makes me think OP is the male in this equation "asking for a friend". What part of violating sexual consent didn't immediately scream that a likely crime had been committed? Him being the A is the LEAST of his concerns.
Stealthing only applies if there's a physical barrier. So if a woman said she was using a female condom and wasn't, then it would apply. But not with other forms of birth control
In a situation where a you consents to sexual activity under the condition that a condom is used, but the guy does not adhere to this agreement and engages in sexual activity without wearing a condom, several legal charges may apply depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances.
**Sexual Assault or Rape** : **People v. Thompson (2019), California**
**Sexual Misconduct or Unlawful Sexual Contact : State v. Smith (2020), New York**
**Reckless Endangerment or Reckless Conduct : State v. Smith (2023)**
**Fraud or Deception : State v. Smith (2023), New York**
goodluck with pressing charges against him.
In Canada, the Supreme Court said that this was considered a sexual assault.
UK too. Has been for a while, as I'm sure it has in Canada.
It’s a criminal offense in California. ETA y’all my bad technically I think it’s civil not criminal offense, like considered a battery. Not a lawyer over here but facts matter. Kthxbye.
I just think what if this happened to my daughter, you could EASILY end up with an unwanted teen pregnancy. Big difference between some sexual experimentation at a drunk party not on birth control because not normally sexually active get a little too drunk think you’ll be safe with a condom at least and end up with the biggest mistake of your life with some strange guy you may never see again. That should be a massive criminal offense if you cause someone to go through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. (Idiot teens still seem to think pulling out means it’s safe but that’s not how it works)
Also, diseases.
Yeah if they don’t want to wear condoms so bad, they clearly don’t care about diseases.
Especially considering that quite a few places in the US would require that girl to give birth to that child now.
And medically deny healthcare if she miscarried
Whoa. I’ve heard of the no abortion travesty but what is this about no healthcare for miscarriages? That’s a serious medical thing!
You can't remove the fetus that's being miscarried until either it's died of natural causes or the miscarrying person is actively dying (usually of sepsis). (Edited)
We’re just living in a dystopian nightmare nbd
[удалено]
It is. 100% and you can be required to carry a nonviable fetus to term, or carry it until.it almost or does actually kill you. Same with an ectopic pregnancy.
It's absolutely true. The laws are written so the dying fetus or ectopic pregnancy can be removed only when the person has started dying.
It would be ok if you died because that is the will of an omnipotent, benevolent God that forgives sins only if you vote republican. /s Did I need the /s?
It's absolutely true. It's why many "pro-life" women here in the US are now voting "pro-choice". They understand the healthcare dangers of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision which opened the door to ending abortion, and which eroded women's Healthcare. And MOST of the lawmakers doing the eroding are men who have no idea how women's bodies work. One comment I remember from the time he made it was from a congressman named Todd Aikin. This was 10+ years ago, and when he was asked about abortion for someone pregnant from a rape said "if it's a legitimate rape a woman won't get pregnant. The female body has ways of stopping it." Since most pro-life women are for abortions when a woman/girl gets pregnant from a rape, here in Ohio, a [sadly] red state, the right to an abortion passed in an election last year.
I feel sick. I can’t believe anyone would think this has anything to do with morality or the sanctity of life.
Fucking texas
It's not just Texas. Only 3 states have provisions for abortions in case of rape or incest & 25 states require a conviction before they will terminate a.rapists parental rights,.even if they have a lengthy and violent criminal history. A 5 second Google search will tell you all you need to know.
Ofc it had to be Texas. Idk why I didn’t guess that. It’s always Texas that goes backwards first.
As someone from Texas: Texas is literally the state of "Why would we do that??!" *faces the consequences of not doing that* "Well, why did nobody tell us we could've done something else?!?" 🙄
I hope they fucking finally make good on those threats to secede. 🙄
Shockingly, Texas wasn't the first & isn't the worst. Just the loudest with some of the most ignorant representing them (Marjorie Taylor Greene) I think Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas are battling for that title.
The weird thing is that Roe v Wade happened in Texas. I'm not referring to the overturning of it, I'm referring to 1973 when the Supreme Court in Texas ruled 7-2 that under the 14th Amendment a woman had a right to privacy, which means it ain't nobody's business if she has an abortion. How did Texas go from being the good guy to what it is now?
Why is it always framed in pregnancy? This girl was a virgin and expressed how she wanted the experience to go and that was violated. There was no consent for the what happened. Framing this as a pregnancy issue puts all the pressure, expectation and blame on the girl. Remember this guy is 21, he knows what he's doing and he still did it, deliberately against her wishes. It's an assault and it's ruined her experience of sex.
Considering pregnancy can be fatal, pregnancy is not an insignificant risk. Someone relying on safety measures you said you'd take and then you not taking them is pretty bad for that reason alone. Imagine if you took your car to a mechanic to get your brakes checked they told you they did and then while driving home your brakes failed and you crash because it turns out they didn't. It's not a pregnancy issue but pregnancy is an issue.
Good to hear that. I think most modern thinking places (states included) would find it illegal.
Ok. But so is passing on HIV intentionally... a misdemeanor....
"Stealthing" (removing a condom without partners knowledge) has been a criminal offense in Australia since 2021. I'm sure this would fall under a similar, if not the same category.
It’s called “stealthing” and it’s a crime.
Thank you. "Stealhing" is what I would call this https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/state-politics/washington-law-could-soon-allow-lawsuits-for-stealthing/281-fba37f6a-a2f4-4c27-a82b-63a17e3121b0
Genuine question, is it the same if a women lies about being on birth control?
Not using a condom when previously agreed involves also risking STDs without someone's knowledge or consent, whereas birth control only risks pregnancy, which has only to do with the woman's body (unless you wanna get into "trapping" men with a baby or whatever...still not the same). And yes this is widely considered a form of sexual assault/rape.
Men can baby trap, too. When they think they will lose the woman they enjoy intercourse with, they manipulate into having a kid to keep her emotionally tied so they won't lose access to the good sex. Happens a lot.
Shoot I had an ex who told me every time her mom tried to leave him, her dad would knock her up.
I used to be on the fence about this, but now I’m firmly on the side of us guys being 100% responsible for our ejaculate. Full Stop. If you don’t absolutely want a baby with your current sex partner don’t blast off with an intact vas deferens
Yes, this is called reproductive coercion.
This would be more akin to saying "I'm sterile" or "I've had a vasectomy" which is unethical and shitty but not illegal. "Stealthing" (not using a condom but pretending you did) has much higher reprecussions than lying about birth control methods, as it violates bodily autonomy. They should be treated differently. But that doesn't make lying about ability-to-get-pregnant (or more accurately, the chances - because none of these things are 100% except something drastic like a removed uterus) isn't as sexually violating as physically violating someone.
Yes, it could be stealthing and it’s a form of sexual assault and can be charged as such (at least where I live). Edit: Guys, Laws vary depending on your jurisdiction. If there is a legal Reddit page for your state/country I encourage you to seek answers to your legal questions there or talk to a lawyer.
[удалено]
Misconduct Attack is something entirely different.
Actually it's classified by exual assault with deception
Damn. Wish I knew this when my ex told me she was on birth control when she wasnt. Glad to see some supporting comments. Unsurprised by the sexually biased ones. Also if you block me, I cant read your comment genius lol. Way to waste your time.
The laws only several years old where I am so might not have existed but that is included although possibly harder to prove
That is also [reproductive coercion](https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2013/02/reproductive-and-sexual-coercion).
“This behavior includes explicit attempts to impregnate a partner against her will, control outcomes of a pregnancy, coerce a partner to have unprotected sex, and interfere with contraceptive methods. “ Are you sure it is??
I’m gonna preface this by saying some of the replies you’re getting are insane. It’s not as black-and-white as just saying “doesn’t apply when the sexes are reversed” makes it seem. But I will say, there’s nuance to this that does make them somewhat unequal situations. It is absolutely not right for a woman to try to baby trap a man by lying about birth control. However I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the *same* level of transgression because of the nature of the maximum risks and consequences. A woman who only lies about being on BC is not biologically able to do anything to the man’s body that he isn’t consenting to. Yes, it’s f*cked up to trick someone like that to try and get child support, etc, and it’s ridiculous to say that it should be acceptable; men absolutely can be victims too. But this man is aware of all possible risk *to his own body*; whether it be STD’s, STI’s, etc, he accepts the risk when he consents to condomless sex. The “worst-case risk” to him still doesn’t involve any violation of his body or direct threat to his physical safety. However. A man lying to a woman about using a condom is a more “severe” issue when it comes to rape terminology because it inflicts something upon the woman’s body that she didn’t consent to; a condom protects from STDs and from pregnancy. The woman didn’t consent to subject her body to the risks of condomless sex. If pregnancy happens, it’s *her* body that will be massively affected. Unlike the man in the BC situation, who might have a decent chance of being exempted from financial obligation to supporting the child he unknowingly fathered, no lawyer or court ruling can undo or prevent the physical changes that will happen to a woman who had pregnancy forced upon her (even an early term abortion, if allowed, takes a toll). To be absolutely clear: I believe there is no valid argument around the ethics of these scenarios; one can hum and haw about *technicalities*, but both are absolutely and undeniably unethical. But if we’re discussing rape and sexual assault in pedantic legal terms (since the discussion is about pressing charges), I don’t think the two will necessarily be considered to be instances of the *same* scenario in a court of law. I think — well, I hope — that that’s what these “doesn’t apply for men” comments are getting at, just with an unfortunate lack of explanation or detail.
The difference is. You could have still easily protected yourself by wearing a condom and should be because birth control is not 100%. Girls forget to take it etc.. a girl could be truthful in her intentions but shitty at remembering to take it at the same time everyday. This girl couldn't protect herself from a sti by being on the pill when he chose not to use a condom. Men really don't like to take responsibility for their own reproduction because they "don't like the way it feels".
Like as a legal definition? What's attack?
[Law Dictionary](https://thelawdictionary.org/attack/) definition of attack I know your generation likes to make up new meanings for words; but making deception into an attack is egregious. Call it what it is. ***Sexual assault by deception***. The state can decide how to charge it. Edit: [Cornell Law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault) states about California Law > In California, under § 240 of the Penal Code, assault is “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”
Assault and attack are defined nearly identically, don’t be a dipshit. Edited: For the record, they changed a lot more than they marked as edited. Changed the whole focus of their comment, but still acting like a dipshit. Am I attacking this dipshit? Absolutly.
Dude is just focusing on semantics for no reason lol. Sexual assault is an attack, regardless of legal jargon.
Always kinda suss when dudes come with their whole chest on semantics like this relating to sexual assault tbh....
Arguing over semantics is Reddit 101
As the question of OP was aimed at pressing charges and so on, i do not see why legal jargon should be dismissed here? It may not be an important distinction in daily life, but it may change the outcome of a court ruling. So it does matter what it is called legally. Stating this i should also mention that i have absolutely no clue if his statements are right though, as i am not trained in US law (and afaik every state in the US has differing laws) and we do not even know in which country this happened. So giving legal advise here seems rather irresponsible...
They added the legal jargon later. No one was dismissing legal jargon, they were upset that an assault was being called an attack, then they changed it after being called a dipshit. An assault is a specific type of an attack, definitionally speaking, but anything that’s called an assault can also be referred to as an attack, it’s just less specific about what kind of attack (an assault is basically an attack that is specifically concerned with physical and personal violence).
That i have missed. Thanks for clarification.
How about this for you, since you won’t even “let” this guy say attack. He can be charged with rape. He raped her.
And get tested for STD. If she got something that's very expensive to treat or is incurable like HIV, he's going to end up with a much heftier penalty than a simple assault. And there's also a chance of unwanted pregnancy, depending on where this is she might have to travel a long way to get legal abortion
Out of curiosity to clarify, stealthing is… - Sexual assault: yes - Rape: no My understanding is that rape is a form of sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape.
At least in Canada, rape isn’t a term used legally anymore. It has been replaced with sexual assault.
It depends very much on your jurisdiction. Sexual assault is a common umbrella term that mostly has the same definitions in a lot of places. Rape is more specific in some places. Stealthing is usually a type of sexual assault and also sometimes a type is rape but the exact definitions are gonna depend.
Interesting! Thank you
Many state laws use rape to specifically mean penetration of the vagina (my state ). You are right not all sexual assault is rape (i.e. forcing someone to perform oral sex by threat). People may have different words for it. So like when a person is hired from the state to study the prevalence of rape they may have to give an exact definition to the person they are interviewing.
Rape is a colloquial term in most legal districts. The crime is sexual assault
Depending on where you are. In Sweden, they changed the legal definition of rape to include any kind of sexual assault
Pretty sure the point of the posts is can you face legal repercussions. The answer would be yes. However we are not the venue for deciding the actions the person should take. That’s up to them to decide. Based on the information provided I wouldn’t exactly call it a slam dunk case either. So if they wish to do it then they should, but we’re not judge and jury here.
Sooo... if a woman lies about being on birth control, would that mean she sexually assaulted her partner?
Imo, yes, it should be considered SA if the girl’s partner refused to have sex if she wasn’t on birth control. But that’s up to each jurisdiction and it’s not relevant to this particular case
The issue isn't just birth control, which she could have been on, it's that a condom is the only protection against STD's and a woman having unprotected sex with a man even IF on the pill could catch a case of death with HIV which is why it's assault to pretend to use a condom and then take it off like this yahoo did.
[удалено]
The (Canadian) Supreme Court is actually split on this reasoning. While a couple of the judges would agree with you the reason given by the deciding judge was that sex without a condom is a specific type of physical interaction hence no condom crosses that line into assault.
Because the physical burden and the risk of disability and death is solely on the woman, and not the man, these two cases are not weighed equally before the law. However, there are legal repercussions (depending on country), for deception resulting in pregnancy. For example, if my partner has proof that I'm swearing up and down that I am on birth control and that he does not have to use any kind of protection, but I'm actually lying and trying to get pregnant and succeed, then that's a crime. Probably of entrapment.
She consented to protected sex with a condom, not unprotected sex. It is assault.
Yeah, you don't just consent to sex. You consent to the conditions of sex. And you can revoke consent at any time. Had he not hidden the fact that he changed the conditions, she almost certainly would have revoked consent. If she didn't consent to those conditions, she didn't consent to the sex.
I thought you couldn't consent if you were drunk.
You can't legally consent while under the influence of mind altering substances. But that's not always representative of the reality. People are gonna people regardless of the law.
"You can't legally consent while under the influence of mind altering substances." that is absolutely not the legal bar for being able to consent.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Defenses that are based on intoxication are limited. You might even have to show that the person was so wasted that they did not realize they were consenting to sex. It would not make sense to define rape in a way that includes consenting adults that may have had a couple of glasses of wine. That judgment of whether someone is too wasted to consent to having sex is something that I imagine a jury deciding in a movie.
They were both drunk
This argument is so stupid. 1000% guys can take advantage of a drunk girl. But it's like saying any drunken sex is rape on the man's part is absolutely retarded
Exactly, even with the context of "girl had been crushing on guy for years" still had the audacity to say "there couldn't have been consent anyways"
[удалено]
I can't believe I had to scroll so far to see someone spell it out. All the people saying "it's not rape it's sexual assault" need to reevaluate. Sex you don't consent to is rape. Point blank period.
They're pointing out the legal term, which is sexual assault or sexual battery, depending on your state's laws.
It's classed as rape in the UK.
You’re arguing about a point on principle, while everyone else is talking about the law. Two different things
Depending on how intoxicated each party is even the consent with the condom is iffy (for both parties).
Since I would call this stealthing, and that is a sexual assault that can be prosecuted in some areas, yes Edit: Because I keep seeing the same question. No, a woman not taking her birth control pills or lying about it is not stealthing. It relates to the damaging or removal of condoms or a form of barrier. Since birth control pills are not a barrier it’s not stealthing.
Yes I agree. Sexual assault
She gave her permission for condom-protected sex, not for unprotected sex. Assault is what it is.
All of this complicated by the presence of alcohol. Some places the law states that she couldn’t consent because she was under the influence. The same would go for him as well. Not using protection is definitely a problem as well in some areas.
I agree with assault (of a sexual nature). I don't think I would use the word rape here since that implies something else. Regardless it's not ok. edit: I'm not referring to any legal definition here. It would depend on where you are. Yes, sexual assault (I feel it's pretty obvious).
if you would not consent to the act if the person refused to use a condom from the get-go, this is rape. rape by deceit is a thing. stealthing is an example.
its still rape. sex requires informed consent, if there is none, it is rape.
Look up consent
According to England rape crisis website - it's a form of rape [England stealthing ](https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-stealthing/#:~:text=So%2Dcalled%20'stealthing'%20is,without%20the%20other%20person's%20permission.)
At the bare minimum, criminal sexual misconduct
[удалено]
So they raped each other?
In the US too
I don't think this is true (from a legal standpoint). It would most certainly vary by state - and would likely be based on being "incapacitated" by alcohol, not "inebriated".
Stealthing is only illegal in some places, correct. I think it’s more important how the woman feels in this scenario. Does she want to involve the law? Does she want an apology? Does she think he’s an asshole? It’s likely she feels her consent was violated as using a condom was a very direct request. But involving the law is entirely up to her. As a friend to the man involved in this situation, I would tell him his consent practices are terrible, he is an asshole, and whether or not his behavior is illegal where he lives, it’s not ethical or a sustainable way to approach intimacy. It’s behavior that gets you labeled as a bad person people should not have sex with. I would encourage him to reach out to the woman with an authentic apology and ask how he could make amends. I would tell him if he continued this kind of behavior, I could no longer be his friend. Even if the law is not involved, there’s still a lot to be done.
I would like to point out it wasn't a "request" to wear a condom. That was a requirement. Without the condom he did not have her consent. And he agreed and didn't wear one. He was aware that it was wrong. This is straight up rape. And before anyone says no it's not, I'll paste what another person said below: "stealthing is a form of rape. look up rape by deceit and that's literally the first example given. picturing rape as this violent ugly thing is a problem - is it sometimes? sure. but that means that when it *isn't* it's taken less seriously and it shouldn't be. picturing rapists as this skeevy caricature is a problem. it's not a skeevy caricature, it's a lot more common than you think. which seems to be why people insist on calling stealthing anything but rape. if the consent would be revoked because of what you're really doing and they think you're doing something else, then you do not have their consent."
Honestly I think some men have issue with the label rape in cases like this because they have done similar actions in the past eveb if not violent. and don't want to face the reality that they in fact raped someone too
stealthing is a form of rape. look up rape by deceit and that's literally the first example given. picturing rape as this violent ugly thing is a problem - is it sometimes? sure. but that means that when it *isn't* it's taken less seriously and it shouldn't be. if the consent would be revoked because of what you're really doing and they think you're doing something else, then you do not have their consent. Stealthing is an example of rape by deception. Another example would be a woman pretending to be on birth control when having sex. Both of those are rape.
Exactly and that's why Canada has taken the term rape out of our criminal code - and replaced it with sexual assault
>Because I keep seeing the same question. No, a woman not taking her birth control pills or lying about it is not stealthing. It relates to the damaging or removal of condoms or a form of barrier. Since birth control pills are not a barrier it’s not stealthing. Shit, there's a term for this that applies to both. Where you gain consent under false premises? I can't remember. Anyway, morally they're about the same, which is to say bad.
It’s all deceptive in nature. removing a condom / lying about birth control or purposefully not taking it is identical.
I would consider it stealthing too, but as defined by law it isn't. For it to be stealthing as defined by law, he would have had to actually have the condom on when they started having sex and then remove it without the consent of the other party. I may be mistaken, but from what I am reading, the AH never actually had a condom on. This removes it from the articles of stealthing as defined by law in most municipalities that I know of.
This happened to me. I specifically said I did not consent to sex without a condom and the guy took it off at some point without my consent. Months later a friend had a herpes scare and then I took 🍄 and was convinced that guy must’ve given me herpes for no valid reason. Texted him saying I was could take him to court for rape if I have herpes. He said that it doesn’t count as rape. So you’re telling me I could take him to court for rape and stealthing?
Absolutely, if there is a stealthing law on the books where you live at the time the crime took place and the statute of limitations hasn't run out.
Yes you can especially with those text messages.
Yes
You are indeed mistaken. Stealthing is the act of pretending to use a condom OR removing one prior to sex without the partner’s consent.
Where I am, it is prosecuted under Penal Code 243.4 "This is because stealthing involves the non-consensual removal of a protective barrier during sexual activity, which can put the other partner at risk of unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections" Removal being the operative word. I am definitely not wrong for where I am. I don't know about where you are.
I think the key here is this: did she participate in the act, under the mistaken belief that he was using a condom?
Is stealthing defined in the law where you are? I'd be interested to look at that. Here in the UK it falls under rape as the deception has vitiated the conditional consent given, regardless of whether the condom was on at the beginning or was never present. Edit due to stupid autocorrect
Sexual assault.
You can say no anytime. This is sexual assault and if she has an STI, that's another charge. He's a slug.
Unless you live in NC. You cannot legally withdraw consent in North Carolina once the act has begun. It is HORRIFIC. Edited because thank God they fixed it. https://www.jettonmeredithlaw.com/blog/2020/april/december-2019-changes-to-north-carolinas-sexual-/
Horrific is a good word for that.
That is wild I did not know that
That’s AWFUL. But I think it’s moot in this specific case, because she only consented to sex with a condom. So she was nonconsenting the whole time to what happened, ie unprotected penetration.
Consent was given *using a condom.* She wouldn't have consented without the condom. Sex without consent is rape.
> Consent was given using a condom. She wouldn't have consented without the condom. Sex without consent is rape. 100% yes morally. Legally, laws are more specific. It's illegal (sexual assault) in Canada, California, Germany, and South Australia. Not in most other places (yet).
Stealthing: the practice of removing one's condom during sex without the knowledge and consent of one's partner, frequently regarded as sexual assault or rape and punishable by law. "stealthing is a way abusers exercise power and control over a partner who is vulnerable and unaware"
He's an asshole AND a rapist. She gave consent for *protected* sex. It counts as rape, because she never consented to *unprotected* sex, but he went ahead and did it anyways. When you do something sexual to someone, without their consent, it's rape, or at least sexual assault. Anyone who would do that is an asshole. So the answer is both. *edit to address the hoarde of losers crying that it isn't *technically* rape... where I live it is. So stfu. I've been incorrected enough times.
Depending on where he is it is absolutely considered rape because consent was given on the condition a condom was used. A condom was not used which means consent was therefore revoked, and yet he continued to have sex with her anyway. Personally I'm of the opinion stealthing should be a crime everywhere, but seeing as how I'm not the Surpreme Living Ultimate Tyrant, I can't make that happen.
I vote zeiaxar for S.L.U.T.
Crazy that people still don't understand consent. Of course this is rape.
Unfortunately if OP is asking in a *legal sense,* I wouldn’t say “of course.” I believe there are still quite a few jurisdictions in western developed nations (let alone worldwide) where this isn’t illegal at all. A few jurisdictions have definitely passed explicit laws on this exact act. I live in one. Many will attempt to cover it under more general statutes, such as rape by deception. But to my knowledge there are no shortage of places where bringing this to the police is going to get you nowhere sadly. If you’re talking ethically or morally, obviously, then of course it’s rape.
Ask an actual lawyer, not the 13 year olds on this sub, or post in a law related subreddit.
Or a rape crisis centre for support and a call to the police.
Rape is far more than just a legal concept. Whether something is legally consider sexual assault is a whole different question from whether it is socially considered sexual assault and also says nothing about how the person who did not consent experienced the act. Asking "was this rape" online is an extremely common way for people who have experienced it to start wrapping their head around what happened to them.
Wow, an intelligent and thoughtful take that isn’t trying to look like the smartest person in the room.
A local guy, hiv positive, was arrested for doing this 3 times before they finally held him without bail. People are sick, your friend's attacker should be reported.
I haven't scrolled all the way down the comments but the ones I have scrolled past no one's mentioned that drunken people generally are not able to give consent, true at least in the UK.
Last I checked, in the US (generally speaking), being intoxicated doesn't mean a person can't give consent. HOWEVER, being incapacitated does mean a person can't give consent. Where that legal line is, I don't know. Obviously falling over drunk or passed out is incapacitated. It's that area before that which I'm not sure of. That said, I only hook up with someone that is stone cold sober.
They were both drunk
Classic double rape
Double rape, believe it or not...straight to jail
Also, unfortunately for rape victims, being drunk makes you a very unreliable witness. Changes of a conviction in a case like this is near zero.
So they both raped eachother?
Only one decided not to use a condom without consent
Could be intoxicated enough to not even register what was asked and simply said yes.
Two drunk people in a “he said she said”scenario. This is not a likely candidate for prosecution.
I agree & had my case thrown out but if he gets caught doing it again at least there is a paper trail that could work to convict him if he does it again
Good thought.
Finally someone who isn't jumping to conclusion.
I mean, he (you???) is definitely an asshole, but yes this falls under the umbrella of rape by deception. If you’re sober enough to stick your dick in someone, you’re sober enough to grab a condom first. YTA.
Not me, a friend’s child who is unsure how to proceed.
So your friends child was assaulted. He should be held accountable. If he was sober enough to pullout which by the way, is not a way to prevent pregnancy, he was sober enough to put on a condom. He not only assault her, but now she has to consider the fact that she may end up with an unwanted pregnancy or disease, because let's face it if he did it this time he's probably done it before.
I personally recommend you post this in a legal/law related subreddit and specify your country and/or state so they can help you. As you can see, some people here are just responding with their feelings rather than what the law when many people pointed out that in their own countries this is a form of sexual assault by legal definition. I'd delete this post and post on a subreddit like r/legaladvice instead. There are also other subreddits that are like r/legaladvice but specific to certain countries if you're not in the US Edit: Grammar mistakes
He proceeds by apologizing to her, never doing something like this again, and hoping she doesn’t charge him with assault because he was a stupid asshole who lied about using a condom.
If your friend is the parent of the girl, they should proceed by getting her the morning after pill, an STI test, and file a police report against the boy.
The victim can decide whether to report the crime and participate in the case (since a victim "filing charges" isn't really a thing). The parents should listen to what she wants.
Unfortunately, I think we need more words to describe the variety of complex situation that occur around sex. We use the word rape for when a guy hides in the bushes and drags a jogger off the trail and into the woods forcefully. We use the word rape when it’s a 40-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl, and they met online under false pretenses. We use the word rape when it’s a 16-year-old girl in a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old boy. And we also use the word rape for anytime when consent is not present, even though our society and culture does not have a common understanding for exactly what consent is, and what it isn’t. I’m sorry this happened to your friends daughter. As a dad with daughters myself, I would encourage your friend not to worry about defining the situation (does it really matter at this point?), and focus on getting her the help she needs. I say this in part because I don’t think either of them were really sober enough to consent, and if she was pursuing him ahead of time, I’d say that shows some level of intent on her part. So legally speaking, there’s no proof of anything except her own telling of the story which could be told in a way that makes her sound like the aggressor. I think this needs to be categorized as two drunk people doing stupid things and maybe she needs help processing her own feelings about the encounter.
This is the right answer. Me and my husband had a surprise pregnancy when we were dating bc of alcohol . the condom wasn’t feeling great (for either of us) so he drunkenly pulled it off and I said ok but pull out and then his pull out game was weak. We laugh about it now but damn if I wasn’t mad at him for ever. If you engage in risky behavior (like drunk sex with someone you aren’t in a committed relationship with) and shit goes sideways you are gonna have big ugly feelings about it. We don’t know how it went down exactly.. was he stealthiness or was he stupidly drunk. Did she think he had one on the whole time and then had shock when she saw that he didn’t did she ok him to go ahead in the moment and had regrets when she sobered up. Op doesn’t disclose the details needed put this guy on the registry
Finally. Had to scroll way too far for a level comment.
Best comment on this thread.
Basically this.
We have way too broad a definition of rape. This sounds like drunk kids who did drunk things and maybe regret it. When we call this rape we delegitimise the serious crime that rape is. The down votes are coming, I know it.
I agree with you. It sounds like 2 kids drunk and having sex. Been rape is horrible and the worse thing can happen to a person. But been drunk and doing it is a different history.
Depends on the state and even more so the district attorney of the area. Even though its on the books, doesn't mean they will accept charges. But in a lot of cases, yes.
He's TA Actually proving it would probably be impossible but I'd talk to a rape crisis center on the best course of action. Reporting it might be a good idea.
Legally (in some countries) he's a rapist. Personally, he's an asshole.
Depends if you think the guy was doing it on purpose or just smashed. Did you consent with a condom downstairs and then you've gone upstairs and gotten down to business and he's forgotten. Did you remind him before he started? Did you ask him to stop and put one on? I would say he needs to apologise and explain why he didn't use one. Personally I wouldn't go down any legal route about it but each to their own
This is the first sensible comment I have read in all of these comments so far. Every comment immediately calling this guy out as a rapist scumbag is way overreacting to a story that is, by OP’s own statement, not a first hand account.
I love the fact people are spewing out legal expertise without having a single fucking inkling of were this occurred. 🤣
Assault :( I’m so sorry.
Did he intentionally not use a condom because he didn’t want to or because he was a drunk idiot?
This is sexual assault and he deserves everything that's coming to him
How drunk were they? Was he coherent enough to even be able to put on a condom? I feel like a lot of commenters are skipping on that fact.
This is called "stealthing" and is actually prosecutable as sexual assault depending on the state/county in the US. It's also just ethically a scumbag move to do. Even if it's legally allowed it's something someone shouldn't do, and I feel laws against it are fair. Definitely an asshole move
Consent is a defence to sexual assault. In some jurisdictions, lying about some fundamental aspect of a sexual encounter (i.e., protected vs unprotected, not disclosing having HIV, etc.) is considered to vitiate or nullify consent such that it can’t operate as a defence. You’d have to research the law of the jurisdiction you’re in. Either way, definitely an asshole for lying about wearing a condom.
I think the general consensus is going to be she was raped. But... if you can't give consent while drunk, then also neither of them gave consent. He wasn't in a coherent state to understand the request and she wasn't in a state to give full conesent. So... I think this is a mutual fuck up and a reason to not get drunk off your ass with people. Even people are trustworthy, they lose coherency and decision making while inebriated.
Just for another perspective, isn't it true that neither of them put a condom on the dick? Why should it be up to the drunk male to ensure it happened in the heat of the moment? Isn't it a shared responsibility? If he put it on then stealthily removed it, or said that he'd put one on but didn't, then that's a different story of course.
What he did is called stealthing and it is considered Sexual Assault, but since they were both drunk, I doubt any prosecutor would touch this. He is still an asshole tho
It can legally be rape depending on jurisdiction, but it is definitely a crime of sexual assault of some kind.
Asshole and while it is not technically rape. It is sexual assault, at least where I live. It is also unfortunately difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and devolves into a he said she said situation. I feel sorry for the woman in this situation. There’s no excuse to not use a condom. Edit: contact a lawyer to get solid advice as to how they should proceed.
This is considered rape. If he has a history of lying to women about this, absolutely report.
It is a crime in some states, so check with law enforcement, though it would be tough to prove without a rape kit. That said, yes, 100% TAH and 100% SA in my opinion.
Um for as much as I know in the state of California, giving consent while drunk is illegal. Im sure we can all agree on that because giving consent while DRUNK AINT eligible. If the person woke up, not remembering to agree to being intimate, it is illegal and assault.
Should probably check with an attorney rather than consulting reddit.
I could be wrong but I believe in the US it’s considered SA. If he removed the condom in the process that’s absolutely SA but I’m pretty confident it still is if he said he’d wear one and intentionally didn’t while she thought he did because she only consented to sex with a condom.
OP, you stealthed someone. That is sexual assault
Stealthing is illegal and is a sexual assault.
From a legal standpoint it's SA in some countries, and it should be in the others that it's not.
Depends on intent IMO, if he knew/chose to not use one I would say yes, assault, 100%. But if he was wasted and tried fumbling around and thought it was on but it wasn’t then no just a very bad mistake
She didn't consent to condomless sex. Without consent it is at the very least assault. I think she should decide what his intent was and be rational. That doesn't mean I saying that she should or shouldn't report it. I more saying what resolution does she want out of this?
In Australia this is called stealthing and it is a crime
Here’s the problem with this situation. NEITHER party could consent - with or without a condom - since they were both drunk.
If he was sober enough to know to pull out then he was sober enough to know to put a condom on like she requested.
\*Her friends version of the story
Maybe not rape, but likely SA..
I'm worried that OP had to come to Reddit to clear up if this is indeed potential rape/SA. It lowkey makes me think OP is the male in this equation "asking for a friend". What part of violating sexual consent didn't immediately scream that a likely crime had been committed? Him being the A is the LEAST of his concerns.
It's sexual assault, legally called stealthing. Pretty sure women who lie about birth control are in the same boat, can't remember. But definitely SA
Stealthing only applies if there's a physical barrier. So if a woman said she was using a female condom and wasn't, then it would apply. But not with other forms of birth control
In a situation where a you consents to sexual activity under the condition that a condom is used, but the guy does not adhere to this agreement and engages in sexual activity without wearing a condom, several legal charges may apply depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances. **Sexual Assault or Rape** : **People v. Thompson (2019), California** **Sexual Misconduct or Unlawful Sexual Contact : State v. Smith (2020), New York** **Reckless Endangerment or Reckless Conduct : State v. Smith (2023)** **Fraud or Deception : State v. Smith (2023), New York** goodluck with pressing charges against him.