The Separate Harms of Reckless Sex

Started by PowerMan72, Sep 24, 2004, 04:45 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

PowerMan72

:x
* LINK TO ARTICLE *


Monday, September 20, 2004
The Separate Harms of Reckless Sex
Ian Ayres

Ian Ayres & Katharine Baker


Even though a new Illustrated report casts Kobe Bryant in an unsavory light, the collapse of the Bryant prosecution is likely to be the first step toward redemption of the star's reputation. To many, he is guilty of nothing worse than adultery. His wife has forgiven him. Expect Bryant Nike commercial before the end of the year.

But regardless of whether the sex was consensual or not, Bryant did something dangerous in that hotel room. He had unprotected sex with someone less than 2 hours after they met. Magic Johnson's earlier example teaches us that reckless sex can endanger the lives of literally dozens of others. Reckless sex deserves separate censure.

This kind of behavior is not the norm. Most people use condoms for one-night stands. According to two different national studies, the majority of adults report using condoms in casual, or non-ongoing, relationships. Some of these people use condoms to prevent disease, some to prevent pregnancy.

But Bryant was not concerned enough about these risks to use a condom. At a minimum, he was reckless in ways that can cause serious harms.

The lion's share of sexually transmitted infections are caused by first-time sexual encounters. Almost all of these diseases could be prevented with condom use.

Unprotected first-encounters are also correlated with coercion. Few men careful enough to use a condom are reckless enough to rape. The same recklessness that causes men to overlook the risk of disease and pregnancy can also lead them to overlook whether the woman has truly consented.

When rape happens early in a relationship, male misperception is a major cause. Indeed, in a statement yesterday, Bryant has explicitly conceded just this kind of misperception. After unconditionally apologizing "for [his] behavior that night," Bryant admitted: "Although I truly believe [sic] this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

The dismissal of Kobe Bryant's case highlights the need for a new kind of criminal law that would both promote public health and help reduce the tragedy of sexual coercion.

A new crime of "reckless sexual conduct" should target unprotected first encounters. To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of a condom. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex.

Giving men a new incentive to wear a condom in first-time sexual encounters should significantly reduce both the risk of sexually transmitted infections and the tragic lack of communication that often gives rise to the illusion of consent. The very act of stopping to put on a condom should increase deliberation and communication. The more deliberation and communication, the lesser the likelihood of acquaintance rape. If Bryant had paused to use a condom, the tragedy of this event might never have occurred.

The crime of reckless sexual assault would also be a powerful prosecutorial tool for the thousands of acquaintance rape cases that are simply not winnable under current law. It represents a way to partially overcome the "he said/she said" dilemma. For some, reasonable doubts remain whether William Kennedy Smith or Mike Tyson raped, but there is no doubt that they engaged in unprotected, first-encounter sex.

Proof of this type of reckless conduct should be sufficient to shift the burden to men to prove consent. The message to men is not necessarily to forego one-night stands, but rather to use a condom or communicate enough so that you can trust your partner.

The new crime of reckless sex would not replace current rape laws and it would not immunize men who rape with condoms from prosecution under existing law. This supplementary crime need not be punished that severely. But, like DUI laws, its very existence would send a clear message that society can punish reckless behavior because it is physically and emotionally damaging, even if it is not motivated by animus..

We are all hurt by a world in which sex is reduced to a base, non-communicative physical act. People on the right and the left side of the political spectrum can agree that extremely casual, unprotected sex does little good for anyone and has the potential to do much harm.

A crime of reckless sex, by encouraging men to protect their sexual partners from disease and pregnancy, can simultaneously encourage men to deliberate and communicate in a way that promotes public health and greatly reduces unnecessary and damaging sexual violence.

We have drafted a model statute (just 200 words) expressly codifying this new crime. In a forthcoming law review article in The University of Chicago Law Review, we provide a more in depth defense of the statute. You can download a prepublication copy here.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

LST

Quote from: "Ian Ayres & Katharine Baker"
Unprotected first-encounters are also correlated with coercion. Few men careful enough to use a condom are reckless enough to rape. The same recklessness that causes men to overlook the risk of disease and pregnancy can also lead them to overlook whether the woman has truly consented.

... ....
........
................
How much more can they keep doing this ? So now men are so fucking dumb and lustful that they just hop on any woman that they see and fuck her and they don't even notice whether she would be struggling or objecting somehow. As if that is how sex happens... As if men are walruses in heat or something.
It also falsely stereotypes men that don't like condoms as rapists, and it tries to make sex without condoms illegal.

FUCKING BULLSHIT
FUCKING BULLSHIT
FUCKING BULLSHIT
FEMINAZI TERROR WILL BE STOPPED

Hey here is another danger of reckless sex: the guy might get into jail for it !!
o pity for feminazis.

dr e

Yet one more way for men to be criminalized and women to be victimized.  They just about say that it is a ploy to garner more convictions for date rape.   :roll:  Doesn't the woman have a say in whether he uses a condom or not?  Why not arrest her?  It's all about men having responsibilities and women have rights.  Never the opposite.  We are fighting an uphill battle.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Double Jeopardy

Quote from: "LST8000"
Quote from: "PowerMan72"
Unprotected first-encounters are also correlated with coercion. Few men careful enough to use a condom are reckless enough to rape. The same recklessness that causes men to overlook the risk of disease and pregnancy can also lead them to overlook whether the woman has truly consented.

... ....
........
................
How much more can they keep doing this ? So now men are so fucking dumb and lustful that they just hop on any woman that they see and fuck her and they don't even notice whether she would be struggling or objecting somehow. As if that is how sex happens... As if men are walruses in heat or something.
It also falsely stereotypes men that don't like condoms as rapists, and it tries to make sex without condoms illegal.

FUCKING BULLSHIT
FUCKING BULLSHIT
FUCKING BULLSHIT
FEMINAZI TERROR WILL BE STOPPED

Hey here is another danger of reckless sex: the guy might get into jail for it !!


I don't know if it's just a matter of hitting the quote button, LST, but Powerman72 didn't write that, he just posted the article.

I am not sure if he agrees with the article, that is up to him to say. But I will concur with you that it is bullshit.

Sir Jessy of Anti

Give 'em hell on the comments section of the blog guys.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

LST

Um i am aware that PowerMan72 didn't write it, since you know... i can read !! Don't be so childish. :--/
o pity for feminazis.

dr e

LST - What DJ is trying to point out to you is that your message makes it appear that you are quoting Powerman when in fact the quote was from the article that he posted.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Double Jeopardy

Thanks, Doc, but I'm afraid the label "Childish" is misdirected from his own reflection, note that he edited his post (Last edited by LST8000 on Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in total).


You are right, I thought I was pointing this out as to not confuse anyone, next time I'll let him spend the wasted time explaining himself.

PowerMan72

:)

It's all good. No harm, no foul.
Lighten up LST.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

LST

So i am the one that needs to "lighten up" now... Look Double Jeopardy, when you click the "quote" button it automatically puts the quote tags in the post, do you know ? And i didn't edit "PowerMan72" out of it because PowerMan72 made the post. I can read and i know that he didn't write this article, and everyone knows that... it's right there in his post, how much more obvious can it be ? But no, Double Jeopardy insists that i am an evil bastard and i am putting words in PowerMan72's mouth. It was just a comment on the article but you make a whole drama out of it and nitpick to no end.
o pity for feminazis.

Double Jeopardy

Hey there, Sport, take a look at the post I made to you. See where it copies exactly what you had in your post originally? It says "Powerman72" wrote, right? Now, you can change it on your post after editing it to "Ian Ayres & Katharine Baker wrote:", Slick, but you can't change whats already copied from your original post. Pretty neat, huh?

All I did was make sure you didn't believe he said it, he wouldn't think you thought he said it. And I never called you an evil bastard, Sport. BUt I can say that what you originally argued for and what you just said makes you appear dishonest.

You're dancing in your own poo, Slick

Now, sit the fuck down.

dr e

Lighten up LST.  You are the one who made the mistake.  When given clear feedback about your error rather than taking responsibility you call DJ childish.  Back off.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

bluegrass

This part is truly astounding beyond words:

"A new crime of "reckless sexual conduct" should target unprotected first encounters. To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of a condom. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex."

Only the person who wears a condom -- the man -- could be possibly charged with this crime!

I also like this wording:

"The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence"

OMFG!!!  allow me the opportunity to prove my innocence your honor.  Isn't that backwards?

Who are these people??!!!
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

LST

I did take responsibility by editing the post and changing to "Ian Ayres & Katharine Baker"... but now Double Jeopardy is trying to present it as me trying to "cover up" and also stupid ("slick", "dancing in your own poo" etc) for not seeing that my original post with the "PowerMan72" is quoted in his post.
And i didn't make any mistake all i did is quote some text. I just don't see what the goddamn problem is, i am not attributing it to PowerMan72, i just clicked the quote button and removed all the rest of the article except that paragraph and i didn't edit "PowerMan72" out because it is irrelevant. Everyone seemed to be displeased with it, so i edited it and changed it to "Ian Ayres & Katharine Baker" but that is still not good enough !!
Perhaps we should just leave this alone. I apologize for calling you childish Double Jeopardy, i can see now that my response to your first post was too defensive. Can we now call it a misunderstanding ?
o pity for feminazis.

Q

How are you supposed to have evidence that you used a condom?  Your options are:

1) Keep the condom indefinatly.  (No thanks)
2) record yourself having sex.  (Illegal, without consent.   I doubt it'll be given)
3) Get them to sign a form (Ha!  There goes the mood.)

Did I miss anything?

Go Up