• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Stealthing' is sexual assault and Congress should address it, lawmakers say

Lursa said:
Yes. THere is now contact, flesh to flesh, and emissions that she did not agree to.
Click to expand...

So if her condition for her consent was that he wear a mask, and he removes it while her eyes were closed during sex, has he violated her personal sovereignty?
 
maquiscat said:
So if her condition for her consent was that he wear a mask, and he removes it while her eyes were closed during sex, has he violated her personal sovereignty?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it was out of infectious concerns and not a costume.
 
Lursa said:
Yes, if it was out of infections concerns and not a costume.
Click to expand...

No infection concerns, or health hazards. Simply she says she will only have sex with him if he wears a mask throughout the whole act. Without that mask he does not have her consent. Is the removal of the mask during sex a violation of her personal sovereignty?
 
maquiscat said:
No infection concerns, or health hazards. Simply she says she will only have sex with him if he wears a mask throughout the whole act. Without that mask he does not have her consent. Is the removal of the mask during sex a violation of her personal sovereignty?
Click to expand...

It depends on the reasons. I thought I made that clear in my response.

You are now reducing the argument to personal preference...not potential harm.

For instance, if she wants him to wear a blue bow tie during sex and he removes it without her consent, I see no issue.
 
Brother AJ said:
So not only are people on here treating this as a non-issue, but they're slut-shaming as well. The misogyny is strong with this one... :roll:
Click to expand...

How do you shame a slut?
 
Lursa said:
It depends on the reasons. I thought I made that clear in my response.

You are now reducing the argument to personal preference...not potential harm.

For instance, if she wants him to wear a blue bow tie during sex and he removes it without her consent, I see no issue.
Click to expand...

So then it is alright to violate someone's consent if one doesn't feel the reasons are valid?
 
maquiscat said:
So then it is alright to violate someone's consent if one doesn't feel the reasons are valid?
Click to expand...

If you choose to challenge, in the courts, personal preference vs. intentional harm...feel free.
 
Lursa said:
If you choose to challenge, in the courts, personal preference vs. intentional harm...feel free.
Click to expand...

That didn't answer the question. The standard is if she says no then it all stops there. So if her conditions are not met then the answer is no. If he changes the conditions mid act and doesn't stop, is that not rape by the standard that she has said no unless conditions are met and remain?
 
maquiscat said:
That didn't answer the question. The standard is if she says no then it all stops there. So if her conditions are not met then the answer is no. If he changes the conditions mid act and doesn't stop, is that not rape by the standard that she has said no unless conditions are met and remain?
Click to expand...

That is yes or no...no conditions, period. For rape.

I never said what we were discussion re: personal harm was rape. I specifically said elsewhere it was not.

All harm during sex is not 'rape.'
 
Lursa said:
That is yes or no...no conditions, period. For rape.

I never said what we were discussion re: personal harm was rape. I specifically said elsewhere it was not.

All harm during sex is not 'rape.'
Click to expand...

It must have been a response to another person and I missed it. Alright, just so I can be sure I have your position straight. Is stealthing on par with rape?
 
maquiscat said:
It must have been a response to another person and I missed it. Alright, just so I can be sure I have your position straight. Is stealthing on par with rape?
Click to expand...

No one has yet defined it for me and I am too lazy to google it.
 
Lursa said:
No one has yet defined it for me and I am too lazy to google it.
Click to expand...

Define what? Stealthing? It's defined in the OP. The removal of a condom by the male, unknown and undesired by the female. It's only what we've been talking about all thread
 
maquiscat said:
Define what? Stealthing? It's defined in the OP. The removal of a condom by the male, unknown and undesired by the female. It's only what we've been talking about all thread
Click to expand...

Both sexes sabotage birth control. That's not rape. The part that is (still not rape) is intentionally opening the door to temporary or permanent harm from STDs. IMO that is assault or there may be other charges.
 
Lursa said:
Both sexes sabotage birth control. That's not rape. The part that is (still not rape) is intentionally opening the door to temporary or permanent harm from STDs. IMO that is assault or there may be other charges.
Click to expand...

So then you are holding a position that only certain consent violations would constitute rape and others would not?
 
maquiscat said:
So then you are holding a position that only certain consent violations would constitute rape and others would not?
Click to expand...

From a legal standpoint, there are many charges that punish consent violations and they dont have to involve sex.

I have completely lost your point and pretty much lost interest in the topic.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a thought but it isn't going to be particularly popular.

If, instead of hopping into bed with whoever ends up in arm's reach at closing time, folks would hold off until they actually know who they're fooling around with it wouldn't be as much of an issue. From the male perspective, the prospect of having a swab shoved up your penis if you happen to catch a little nasty SHOULD be enough to convince you that it would be a good idea to keep your package wrapped until Christmas. If THAT isn't enough then the prospect of paying child support for the next 18 years should make you seriously consider stapling the damned thing on.
Click to expand...

Right, because it's impossible to manipulate someone into sex. Men never lie for sex, it basically doesn't happen. And those magical men who never lie also think rationally about the consequences of their behavior.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Stealthing is becoming a more prevalent phenomena among younger Americans. The consequences can be life-changing.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Congress should not get involved.
 
maquiscat said:
Why not? Not saying I disagree, but by itself that isn't much of an argument.
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment says that any power not enumerated to Congress belongs to the States, unless otherwise forbidden to them. The Supreme Court says this amendment is merely a truism, but I disagree. In my opinion, it restricts Congress's legislative power to matters within Washington D.C., over which they have absolute jurisdiction, and to what is specifically enumerated to them under Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution. I'm not a constitutional lawyer and may have overlooked something, but the gist is that they can't pass a law on anything unless the Constitution says so.

Congress has the power to "define and punish" felonies "committed on the high seas" - i.e. by an American person or vessel in international waters. So unless the act of "stealthing" is occurring on a boat outside of U.S. territory, Congress cannot pass a law against it. They also cannot pass laws regarding murder, drug use, abortion, child pornography, or gun control (and that's not even factoring the 2nd Amendment). I'm not saying that any of these things should be legal, merely that they are the sole jurisdiction of the States and the 10th Amendment makes this very clear.

As for whether stealthing should be illegal at a State level, I have no opinion. It's the kind of messed-up situation that people shouldn't get into in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom