Sperm stealing and men's rights - what do you think?

[loubeatty]

Hi guys,
Wanted to get your thoughts on a recent petition to make 'spurgling' - pretending you're on the pill when you're not to get pregnant - a serious sexual offence. Has anyone had any experience of this (or known friends who have)? (Is it just an urban legend, essentially?!) ...Do you think it should be a serious crime?

@KohlaParasaurus

No. Becoming pregnant by deception is a desperate and unwise act, but not one that should be criminalised. And as everyone else has pointed out, a man who wants to ensure a particular sexual encounter does not result in a pregnancy can take responsibility for the disposal of his ejaculate.

If the act is by deception then it really should be criminalised. It would make him financially liable for years for a child he didn't want, think of how that child could feel being told he/she was born by deception and their father didn't want them, saw their very existence as an offence.

How often does it happen, no idea. The idea that men (or women) are thinking clearly at all times during a passionate encounter, clearly enough to say 'stop I'll just go get a condom), is anon starter. A male pill is needed.

Someone I know slept with someone who said she was on the pill

She wasn’t but had decided he would make a great dad!

Partly his fault as he should have used a condom

Ok now the child is here he is stepping up, but it’s not what he wanted at 20

If a man wants to be 100% sure he won't get a woman pregnant, don't have sex with her.
No contraception is 100% effective.
Of course it shouldn't be illegal, two people having consensual sex are consenting to possible pregnancy unless they know they're infertile.

How would you prove this? The pill isn't 100% reliable and is notoriously ineffective when taken incorrectly. Looking back, I used to take it incorrectly quite often in my 20s when I was quite lackadaisical about this sort of thing (different times of day, missing a pill, being sick). No evil intent, but life was quite chaotic then and I wasn't particularly organised. That's why it's sensible to double up on contraception if you're absolutely set on avoiding pregnancy.

Also, have you thought through the logical consequence of jailing women who 'trick' men into pregnancy? Namely that the parent who wants the child will be sent to jail and the child will either be left with the parent who doesn't want them or placed in care or with relatives. Hardly ideal.

Any lie that is so egregious that it would cause the other person to change the decision to have sex is a violation of free and informed consent.

This. It needs to be illegal not from the angle of thinking about it with regard to pregnancy but with regards to consent.

If you lie to someone to gain their consent you have not got informed consent.

I think it should be treated the same as stealthing (secretly removing a condom during sex).

Very difficult to prove though. And I'd be worried about women being falsely accused when the pill doesn't work for whatever reason (and it's obvs not 100% effective).

@ViceLikeBlip

I think it should be treated the same as stealthing (secretly removing a condom during sex).

Very difficult to prove though. And I'd be worried about women being falsely accused when the pill doesn't work for whatever reason (and it's obvs not 100% effective).

Something can be a law in name and very difficult to prove in reality (I wonder how many convictions there have actually been for stealthing).

But by recognising it in law as an immoral act it gives the victims a right to feel violated and an outlet to process their emotions. Men have a right to feel violated that a sexual partner has betrayed their trust and lied to them to gain their consent just as much as women do.

The misandry on Mumsnet gets worse every day. This should be the same as stealthing and having an unsuspecting man on the hook for CMS isn't on. That said the man should take precautions too and perhaps only insist on having sex with women if they have a implant or something that cannot easily fail.

Apparently he had consensual sex with a condoms and then afterwards went into the bathroom, removed the filled condom and put hot sauce in it to kill the sperm.

I’m a bit dubious about his claim that the hot sauce was to kill the sperm. A) why would anyone have hot sauce in the bathroom? And B) he was in the bathroom- he could have rinsed out the condom before chucking it in the bin.

Suspect he knew the woman was going to try and steal the semen and decided to revenge.

A man shouldn't just rely on a woman to prevent a pregnancy. What steps is he taking.
Wear a condom, pull out, have the snip. Something else?

So if a woman is found guilty of this criminal offence will the man then not be obliged to support the child?

Another way to avoid paying maintenance?

@RogerDodger

Apparently he had consensual sex with a condoms and then afterwards went into the bathroom, removed the filled condom and put hot sauce in it to kill the sperm.

I’m a bit dubious about his claim that the hot sauce was to kill the sperm. A) why would anyone have hot sauce in the bathroom? And B) he was in the bathroom- he could have rinsed out the condom before chucking it in the bin.

Suspect he knew the woman was going to try and steal the semen and decided to revenge.

The thing is even if he was, who is actually in the wrong here?

One could argue it never would've happened to her in the first place if she hadn't attempted to steal the sperm. Like students who put laxatives in their milk to catch the milk thief housemate.

I have had consensual sex before where we agreed my partner would wear a condom. He took it off when I didn't see him do it and had sex with me without a condom because of his personal preference for how it felt. I didn't realise until after so I couldn't ask him to stop.
If I'd gotten pregnant from that would they prosecute him or would it be my fault for not taking the morning after pill?

@Anotherhill

Yes I do think it should be a serious crime, but how would you prove it? Accidents happen - how can you tell it’s not an accident?

That would be my position too.

I’d also add that it would NOT stop the man to have any responsibility for the child. He could have used a condom, not have sex etc.. if he REALLY didn’t want a child.

There is a question as to how you would prove that or how often it happens tbh. But o know my aunt (years and years ago) was going in about not taking the pill (and not telling her then husband) so they could age another child. She was hoping this would stop her cheating husband from moving out.
Thank god her plan didn’t work (no child and yes he left)

The thing is even if he was, who is actually in the wrong here?

Both surely? She was knowingly taking it without permission, he was (if the hot sauces was for the purpose I suspect) knowingly causing harm.

Btw, I also think that a woman saying she is in the pill but not being diligent about how/when she is taking it would NOT be lying about taking the pill.

It's a terrible idea for a few very simple reasons:

• it would be essentially impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt (no one monitors pill intake, and such monitoring would be a gross breach of privacy)
• it would result in perfectly innocent women experiencing contraception failure (that would be about 5% every year, in the real world?) being wrongly accused of deception, and very probably pressured into getting an abortion (under threat of being sent to court by their partner)

This second part reminds me of how women experiencing miscarriage get criminalised in certain parts of the world (accused of having had an illegal abortion)

It's also a complete false equivalence. Stealthing introduces the risk of pregnancy and STDs. Both are massive direct health risks, resulting from a substance being introduced into a person's body against their wishes.
Lying about being on the pill introduces a risk of pregnancy, which is of no physical consequences for the "sperm donor" himself. There's legal/financial ramifications for sure, but it is in no way equivalent with injecting an unwanted substance which carries serious health risks into someone else's body.

And most importantly, in term of "monitoring": putting on a condom has no impact on a man's bodily integrity, and can be easily checked on the spot. A condom having been removed is also easy to prove, given the resulting mess. The only "invasive" tests required would involve the presumed victim, not the presumed perpetrator.
The pill having been correctly taken or not is much harder to prove or disprove, and involves the monitoring, over a significant period (including, before the act??), of which substances enteed the presumed perpretrator's body. Monitoring this is neither reasonable nor practical, and could easily result in coercive control from abusive partners, and distorting women's choice about what to do with their own bodies (e.g. opt for the much more invasive implant itself, as it's easier to prove? but it can come with more unpleasant/dangerous side effects)

Bottom line: don't want kids? Wear a condom, get the snip, or fuck off.

There more I consider these questions and others I have come to the conclusion that a big problem is that our society believes that we all have a right to consequence free sex.

But consequence free sex is a myth.

By consequence I mean pregnancy, STDs, emotional attachments or emotional reactions...etc

There are many measures we can take to try and avoid these consequences (and I'm grateful for the measures!) like contraception, open conversations about expectations...

But even so, sex always will have the potential to have significant consequences. And no measure can completely change that, especially when people do lie, change their minds, get emotionally attached...

And I think we need to be forthright about thar. Sex will always have the potential for serious consequences. But I don't know how you have that conversation without looking like you are slut shaming or being sex negative.

Sounds like something Fathers for Justice would spunk all over, pun intended.

I have no idea why this is being taken so seriously. If you don't want a baby a) dont have sex or b) have sex and wear a condom c) if you dont trust the woman who you are willing having sex with , wear 2 x b) or instead a)

Unless of course this is just another evil bitch conspiracy

@SpideySenseTingles

There more I consider these questions and others I have come to the conclusion that a big problem is that our society believes that we all have a right to consequence free sex.

But consequence free sex is a myth.

By consequence I mean pregnancy, STDs, emotional attachments or emotional reactions...etc

There are many measures we can take to try and avoid these consequences (and I'm grateful for the measures!) like contraception, open conversations about expectations...

But even so, sex always will have the potential to have significant consequences. And no measure can completely change that, especially when people do lie, change their minds, get emotionally attached...

And I think we need to be forthright about thar. Sex will always have the potential for serious consequences. But I don't know how you have that conversation without looking like you are slut shaming or being sex negative.

I agree with this. A lot of the angst around this is because we've been sold a myth of consequence free sex, and men in particular seem to think they are entitled to consequence free sex.

Ok so the jurno has got the info needed for the next article. Was very obvious really.

If I were you guys I would’t grace this thread with any more comments. It’ll only fuel the article.

I think if men don't want a child they need to wear a condom!

I know.two women (decades apart)who wanted a pregnancy and told the respective partners not to worry about contraception as they would take care of that side of things. Both were 'using' the diaphragm which has a high fail rate (100% if it's not used at all!) and blamed that for the resulting pregnancy. Neither felt that they had done anything wrong.