Thinking about consent

[CrunchyFrog]

a lot recently.

I saw a film at the weekend that was very triggering ("Tyrannosaur," it is a great film in that it really got people talking -men and women - about DV in a way I had never heard before, but it is a very hard film to watch.)

Anyway, the film started some conversations with male friends about the issues of consent, when sex is not consensual even if it appears to be, that sort of thing.

It is my opinion that if someone gives consent to sex, or even if there's an enthusiastic yes, if that person is not in possession of all the facts, then they cannot be said to be consenting. For example, if a man is sleeping with another woman and neither of them know - is that in fact an assault? If they would not have chosen to sleep with them if they knew about it?

Or if someone consents to sex with a condom, and the condom is not used without the knowledge of the partner - does that negate the consent?

My thinking - and I'm willing to be corrected - is that in those situations, even where sex is apparently consensual and mutually enjoyable, an abuse is still taking place. Does that make any sense, or am I being mad?

What do you think?

[Memoo]

The first example you give I'm not so sure but the second one I would definitely agree. The women has not agreed to sex without a condom so no consent has been given. In my opinion that's an assault.

[lemniscate]

I don't think the first example is an assault. If the sexual act was consensual, the actions of one or other of the people outside of that situation does not negate the consent given at the time.

The second I think is definitely an assault. I'm not sure if it is prosecutable (although I think probably it should be) but if one person consented on the understanding that a condom must be used and then a condom wasn't used, I think this should be considered an assault - it is not sticking to the consent sought/given.

[KRITIQ]

Yes, I'd go with the comments so far.

I would put the failing-to-use-a-condom-when-that-was-agreed as similar to both people agreeing to engage in a, b and c types of sexual contact, but one person then doing d when the other person hasn't agreed with that.

I don't personally understand how a person who genuinely has respect and positive regard for the other person would want to deceive them into doing something they don't want to do.

I do understand that the "popular" image of masculinity being peddled these days includes pushing women to do things they don't want to do, whether from what could at a stretch be seen as "mild deception" all the way through to justifying rape - and in my view, no points on that spectrum are acceptable or evidence of someone showing respect and positive regard for their partner.

[solidgoldbrass]

Yup, sex without a condom when you have agreed to use one is thoroughly wrong and an assault (because it is a risk to the woman's health - and I say the woman's health because even I can't quite conceive of a situation where a man could not know that the condom had been deliberately removed. Even my fanny muscles are not powerful enough to deliberatelly eat a condom without telling the bloke). Sex with someone you have misled about your relationship status isn't terribly ethical but it's certainly not a crime, because the person who has been misled has been disappointed at worst.

[MsAnnTeak]

Thanks for reminding me about the film, I saw a preview and wanted to watch it. If a condom isn't used when it's been asked for it is a form of assault. But it does pose the question, if a woman insists she is using contraception but isn't and purposely becomes pregnant has she committed a theft ?

[TheBossofMe]

Haven't seen the film but will try and track it down. Thanks for the reminder.

Example 1 - disappointing, yes, misleading, yes, assault, I don't think so. I mean, I've been misled, lied to and cheated on by many men, but I don't think I could claim they assaulted me by not being honest. Somehow claiming that minimises actual assault, IYKWIM.

Example 2 - yes, I reckon that is an assault or certainly should be a crime of some sort, because you have agreed to have a specific type of sex (protected) and have in fact been forced into a different type of sex against your will. Not sure I would not know that a condom isn't being used, though. I mean, can't you see it, let alone feel it?

MsAnnTeak is right, though, it works both ways. If we say example 2 is an assault, then its also an assault if a woman claims to be using protection and isn't. Or witholds the info that she has in fact forgetten her pill that morning. Hmm, seems I am guilty of assault then, because I have in the past not explicitly told DH that I had missed a pill.

Interesting, this thread is making me look at myself and what I do/don't share with DH when it comes to contraceptive risk.

[KRITIQ]

I think there is a massive difference with regard to condoms and other forms of contraception here.

It's the only 'visible for,' of contraception, where both people can know for sure whether it's being used. If a man says he's had a vasectomy or the woman says she's taking the pill, then the other person is taking it on trust. If one is happy to do that, fine.

Also, other forms of contraception don't protect against sexually transmitted infections, and that's crucial. By refusing to use one, a man could be exposing his partner to infection (whether the partner is male or female, the person being penetrated is at a greater risk of acquiring infection than other way round.)

[CrunchyFrog]

The first example is also exposure to STD risk, which is kind of what I was thinking about.

[messyisthenewtidy]

Example 2 happened to me and it was absolutely awful having to go through the anxiety of having tests, waiting for results, thinking about what you would do if you had contracted something, how you would tell your family, etc.

Apart from all the worry I felt completely duped...

[TheBossofMe]

OK, I overpersonalised my comments by only thinking about my own circumstances where pregnancy is the issue not STDs (I hope, anyway). My huge apologies for such a stupid comment that ignored the STD risk, I seem to losing the ability to perceive risk other than those that i worry about.

messy, your comments have made me understand why its different. I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

[KRITIQ]

Don't mean to sound harsh Boss, but hope won't protect someone from sexually transmitted infections.

[TheBossofMe]

Well, I've been married to DH for 13 years, both of us have annual check ups including sexual health ones, and as far as I know he hasn't cheated on me since his last check. So I would assume I am fairly safe was far as STD risk goes.

Actually if I'm honest, we haven't had sex in so long that there isn't much hope of pregnancy either, but that's a whole other thread

However, I appreciate that my earlier comments were somewhat stupid - because I don't think about STDs, I just forgot about them (I've been with DH a very long time, so the last time I was in the dating pool, I was v young v stupid and never gave a thought to STDs).

Sigh, my first day back on MN after a long break and I've already wedged my foot very firmly in my mouth. Apologies.

[solidgoldbrass]

I think it is pretty unethical for a woman to have PIV sex with a man and claim she is protected against conception when she knows the reverse is true, but it's not as bad as a man being decietful about the use of a condom. Obviously, condom use is important for STD prevention but also, a man who is really determined not to impregnate his sexual partner needs to take responsibility either by using a condom or avoiding PIV; if he doesn't do either of those things he is knowingly taking a risk.

[SardineQueen]

It's the difference between ethically/morally wrong, and causing actual physical harm (or the potential to do so).

That wikileaks bloke, one of the charges against him IIRC was that he agreed to use a condom and then deliberately tore/removed it. So that is certainly a prosecutable offence at least in Sweden (was it sweden? my memory is rubbish).

Over here if you know you have an STD and have unprotected sex with someone then that is also prosecutable - maybe only if you have lied though? There is something like that people have been successfully prosecuted for giving others STDs.

The unfaithful/lying stuff generally falls into the unethical/immoral thing in my view BUT what about that policeman who was undercover and having sex / relationships / babies (?) with all of those eco-women? There was some question that he had acted illegally as it was against the remit of his role to do that etc.

It's all a bit tricky.

But as a general rule I would say that if someone's health is not endangered then there's no room for criminal charges surely.

[lemniscate]

Crunchy - the first is indeed an example of exposure to STD risk, but whenever we give consent to sex we are exposing ourselves to an STD risk and it is our responsibility to ensure we take appropriate measures to minimise that risk. So I don't think the STD risk changes my view of that scenario - the people involved have still consented to the sexual act and presumably consented to whatever barrier method they consider necessary and so long as both parties stick to that agreement then the actions of the person outside that act are irrelevant - you consented to the act at the time and chose the level of risk you were willing to take as part of that consent. That is very different to scenario 2 where you consented to sex with a condom - so managed the risk of the situation as you saw appropriate - but the condom was not used thus exposing you to a risk you had thought you had minimised. Very different I'd say.