Fully aware of the exact nature of the proposed sexual activity
January 9, 2013That’s the language used. This shall become VERY interesting.
I have new stuff coming soon, but i couldn’t let this one pass up. No time to make a detailed post, just my emphasis in bold. The plot thickens…
[update:] now that i have a little extra time to devote to this, to any new readers of this post i want them to fixate on this particular comment
“..only gave her consent for protected sex with the intention to avoid conception, the court qualified Hutchinson’s actions as sexual assault.”
and then consider this, this and this after you’ve read the Yahoo post. Comments welcome.
…
Craig Jaret Hutchinson who poked holes in girlfriend’s condoms loses court appeal
When their relationship started to go sour, Nova Scotian Craig Jaret Hutchinson decided a baby would heal the rift between him and his girlfriend.
There was a slight problem, however. His girlfriend didn’t want to have his child.
So when the Halifax woman learned she was pregnant in September 2006, she was “shocked.” Hutchinson, on the other hand, was thrilled.
He later confessed that he had poked holes in their condoms with a pin in order to intentionally get her pregnant.Horrified, his girlfriend called the police. She later had an abortion and suffered a uterine infection as a result that had to be treated with antibiotics.
The 42-year-old man was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Though he was acquitted in 2009, the decision was overturned and after a subsequent retrial he was sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Hutchinson appealed the decision, as CBC notes, arguing that the sex was consensual and that his sentence was “harsh and excessive.”
His case went all the way to Nova Scotia’s Court of Appeal, which released a 4-1 majority decision on Thursday to uphold the sentence.
The moral questions involved in this case are clear: Hutchinson’s actions were appalling.
The legal questions, on the other hand, have sparked much debate.
As the National Post reports, Chief Justice Michael MacDonald articulated the majority court decision that the alleged victim must be “fully aware of the exact nature of the proposed sexual activity.”
Under the Canadian Criminal Code, sex without consent is considered assault. Because the woman — identified as N.S. to protect her identity — only gave her consent for protected sex with the intention to avoid conception, the court qualified Hutchinson’s actions as sexual assault.The Court’s one dissenting voice, Justice David Farrar, expressed concern that this decision would create a “potential slippery slope” for women who stop taking birth control and get pregnant without their partner’s knowledge or consent.
“Expanding criminal liability in this way would represent a dramatic step backwards,” writes Justice Farrar.
However, Justice MacDonald countered that because pregnancy carries far greater consequences for the mother than the father, should the gender roles be reversed, the circumstances would not fit the same definition of assault.
It’s an argument that, while biologically correct, may not fully take into account the significant emotional and financial toll for the unwitting father of a child conceived under duplicitous circumstances.
On the other hand, the idea that men like Hutchinson may think they can legally get away with poking holes in condoms, potentially causing pregnancy or the spread of STDs, is a truly terrifying thought.
Meanwhile, Farrar’s dissenting opinion gives Hutchinson’s lawyer the option to take his case to the Supreme Court. So far no decision has been made in that regard.
M3 
Can’t legislate morality. Pah.
Also… sexual assault? I’m /really/ squirmy about that one. Not sitting well w/ me at all, because I have a feeling the feminists will latch onto this one and use it to screw men over… and not in a fun way, obviously. I’m distracted, will come back to this later 🙂 Good to see you back, M3.
I am reminded of Dalrock’s statement:
“[Women] want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.
One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actual amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimic would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of control. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.”
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/what-husies-want/
So this works both ways right, a woman that stops taking her pill to try and get pregnant with a baby her partner doesn’t want can get prosecuted for sexual assault against him? No? Didn’t think so…
If that is sexual assault, it is only fair that women getting pregnant by lying about birth control , etc. should be viewed as the same and sent to jail as well.
Lets see how those numbers add up…
That was the point i was driving at. This has the possibility of setting a precedent the one dissenting judge alluded to. That the days of wanting cake and eating it too will end, and all these ‘ooops im pregnant, gimme 18 years of child support cheques’ because as the headline of my post suggests… there would be no ambiguity on the matter if she knows the man does not want children and makes it known.
This case shows that the woman did not consent to the act of sex TO GET PREGNANT. She consented to sex.. which as Susan Walsh has always said, can result in pregnancy, whether the condom naturally fails or intentionally broken. This case is opening the can of worms that sex with the intention of secretly trying to get pregnant against the oblivious partners back constitutes a crime and is punishable.
So long secret baby momma. You’re going to the slammer. Doh.
Eggggggsactly.
I agree with you M3 this should prove interesting.
It is hard to deny what the guy did was wrong. Sexual assault? Probably not, but there would need to be some new class of crime committed here. Although perhaps existing fraud legislation would cover it.
At any rate, you are right, this should prove interesting. I don’t know what the judge was thinking suggesting that there is some difference between men and women here. Feminists will want to see it this way, but the logic of the position is sound. If a women gets herself intentionally pregnant in the same manner, then she is guilty of the same crime, in this case “sexual assault”, although I think such a category is silly.
What feminists and others fail to realize is that the law is in general brutally logical, even if it is only brutally logical slowly and over time. If feminists celebrate this they will (as is usual for them) only be looking at the short term and fail to see the precedent that is being set here.
Will be interested to see how this shakes out over time.
I wouldn’t hold your breath – as you quoted: “Justice MacDonald countered that because pregnancy carries far greater consequences for the mother than the father, should the gender roles be reversed, the circumstances would not fit the same definition of assault”
And were the gender roles reversed, I also seriously doubt whether they’d take the fact she got pregnant disingenuously into account when forcing the man to pay child support should they split up.
The feminine imperative shall find a way to endure…
INteresting that impregnating a woman without her consent is now considered “sexual assault” in Nova Scotia.
however, a woman defrauding a man and intentionally getting herself knocked up isn’t assault.
It seems to me that both the man and woman consent to the act of intercourse and all the risks attendant to that act. One of the risks attendant to the act is pregnancy. That risk is present whether or not contraception is used. Condoms fail. Hormonal birth control fails. Contraception fails. The man and woman bear the risk equally: She in carrying the child and giving birth; he in footing the bill.
But now women have demanded unequal treatment and have now criminalized sexual conduct. The man’s not guilty of assault. He’s guilty of fraud and of lying, but not assault. She consented to sex.
Interesting.
I’d agree with M3 here yousowould. In the short term you are no doubt correct that a double standard will prevail and the “feminine imperative” will seek to see the law only gets enforced one way.
The problem is that over the long term the law tends to be brutally logical. Not in the short term, but over time the consequences of this sort of decision will shake out and force a choice one way or the other, and based on such precedents probably not the way the feminists want.
The first case will probably be something like, she lied, and admitted she lied to a girlfriend or some such and that case ends up in court and the woman ends up convicted. At the very least the father gets let off the child support hook because he is the victim of a crime here and was defrauded, or get treated better than he otherwise would. Then the law gets pushed out from there, in defense of more and more marginal cases. That has traditionally been how the law works out over time. It works slowly, but it does work like that.
Consider the way euthanasia laws have moved in a more and more brutally logical direction over time. Starting with the terminally ill in unbearable pain and being further and further extended based on the logic of the position to the point that depressed teenagers can avail themselves of it.
Perhaps, but i dunno. It’s not like we’re talking about something as arbitrary and easy to manipulate as who gets what after a divorce. This is criminal code stuff, and you can’t play favorites with bringing up charges. Sure women generally get more lenient sentences and less time for the same charge.. but they still DO have to face them.
The wording here is very specific. It’s with regards to both parties understanding what they’re engaging in when consenting to sex beyond just the act of sex itself. We’ve beaten this time and again. I have tons of posts regarding abortion and reproductive rights that already dealt with the inequality of men having NO legal standing after their sperm leaves their body and are still in the legal noose if any woman gets pregnant by him, even if he was the one that was raped!
This case is now threatening to throw that into chaos because now.. the one time it works against a woman, it’s ASSAULT so we need to institute new legislation that goes beyond just sex, and now to intent for conception on behalf of both parties.. and i fucking welcome it.
She says she was assaulted because he lied about wanting to get pregnant and used faulty condoms to sneak it in her. It was assault because he introduced possible harm to her via STD’s. Well how does this NOT work in reverse? Her lying about wanting a kid, saying she’s on the pill when she isn’t or poking holes in his condom, possibly giving a dude the HIV.. and making him a father when his intent was made clear?
Finally i have to say… i’m surprised no one talked about the best interests of the child.. the one that ended up in the dumpster.
I think it was Rollo or Dalrock who said it best. They’re losing control of the message. The imperative is under siege. Men just don’t fucking care anymore to uphold it and there areless and less mangina’s and white knights in the land of pinterest to keep the kingdom quelled.
Exactly. Me and Susan Walsh butted heads on too many occasions regarding this one. She always said every act of sex could lead to preggers which means men should man up in the interest of the child. I always told her to fly a kite.
That said, now we have case where:
1. the woman had consensual sex.. a choice
2. didn’t man up, and had an abortion with side effects.. a choice
3. wants to claim assault because she had to face the consequences of her choices and didn’t like it.
Both choices that team woman has always said forced men to comply by the use of force through the state to hand over their balls for the next 18 years.
This case, if it legally sets the precedent to convict this man based on the above will force ‘equality’ upon women as well when men start putting women away for having consensual sex where the woman gets preggers in bad faith.
Distracted? Do tell… 😉
It’s good to be back, i think? lol.
The financial obligation argument is actually weaker.
I as a man, should have a say in who gets to share my genes. My DNA, my rights. If I don’t want the fat ugly chick to be combining my genes with hers, I should have a say in this. Unless I waive the rights to donated sperm, I should have a say in who gets to use them, and for what. I do not buy the argument that my biological property can be used without authorization simply because it exited my body. This would be like Monsanto losing cases where they’ve sued farmers nearby the experimental farms because their similar crop was cross-pollinated by the wind (they’ve won those cases, by the way). Fertile DNA/seed is considered legal property in the field of biology research, why doesn’t a male citizen have similar rights?
Actually the case has probably ever gone to court and argued with that precedent in mind. It would make an interesting test case to try though. No reason why it shouldn’t wok either and given the implication groups like Monsanto are probably going to see with the men.
This one would be fun to argue in court.
The best part would be when the weapon used in the assault is found to be much too small to fit inside Exhibit A, and the defense explains:
‘If the love glove don’t fit, you must acquit.’
Dude. You should try and get into stand up.
This, and the way you normally go after Danny.. it’s gold 🙂
I’ve thought about it, but I don’t think I could make myself repeat material night after night. That’s like meeting a cute girl and having Mystery Method running through your head while she’s blowing you.
Also, I’m too pretty to be a comic. Five years from now I’d just be another douche with a shitty sitcom and a really expensive car.
Wokka wokka. He’ll be here all week.
What he did wasn’t assault. It was fraud. Which he possibly could have skated on if he hadn’t been dumb enough to brag about it.
Any physical harm to her was the result of her actions after the fact.
How to proceed if an STD was transmitted but doesn’t show up until later would be pretty muddy.
You were absolutely right in saying no one addressed the interests of the child. Especially not the parents.
Well, I of course agree that the double standard is despicable, and I hope you guys are proven correct that the law will slowly move more towards equality in this area.
I’m just a cynic I guess!
Do men really tell everybody their plans? Especially the type that a corrupt court system can throw you into prison rape jail for.
In this day and age, I’m hesistant to tell women what kind of food I eat.
I make it a point to never argue in favor of somebody acting like an idiot. He was a fool for 1) poking holes in the condom and impregnating her against her wishes; 2) then bragging about it later. Save the righteous indignation for when the poor guy deserves it is all I’m saying…
Have to agree withyousowould here. You think little principles like fairness or justice are going to be taken into account in mens favor when it comes to laws concerning sex and child support? Havent you been paying attention to how the current laws in thise areas work? This is a justice free zone im afraid, and no matter how the law is written there is always room for white knights in the system to insert their own influence to make sure things turn out the “right” way.
Apollo,
In the short term? No definitely not. In the short term I expect to see continued attempts to double down on the existing lunacy, but it is already suffering from increasingly diminished returns. You can’t get blood out of a stone no matter how many laws you pass.
Will it get worse before it gets better? Almost definitely.
But give it time. The current system can’t be sustained and propped up indefinitely. In the short term it might look like it can, the entire welfare state is falling apart around us and already the most “generous” nations have more or less destroyed themselves making promises they can’t conceivably keep.
Feminism requires the welfare state to exist and the welfare state is doomed.
There is a bright spot in all this. Where the MSM covered the story, the comments sections were packed with questions and remarks about the more common reverse scenario. Would a woman who conspires to get knocked up against the man’s choice be guilty of a crime, or at least absolve him of any legal obligation? Those themes got the vast majority of the discussion play, with only token voices ineffectually asserting that woman should continue to get a pass.
MRM thought is getting out there in a serious way, or at the very least, public opinion is highly amenable to our goals on removing the gender bias (i.e. the pussy pass) from the law.
Agreed, and i’ve been advocating that everyone in the sphere who comments on the big blogs
#10
https://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/sphere-exercises-and-challenges-to-keep-you-sharp/
blogs like RM, Dalrock etc.. that they should focus their energy in leaving a blitzkrieg of comments in MSM articles that pop up like molds spores and fungus. That’s the best way to mainstream redpill views, by directly challenging the hypocrisy of feminist thought in the PUBLIC sphere where their twisted feminist logic will wither under the scrutiny of daylight.
Just as when the University of Toronto protest of Dr. William Farrell showed just how unhinged your normal everyday feminist is, openly challenging their stupidity in the public sphere where new betas are fresh for unplugging.. that’s the best place to do it.
Jason
Correct me if im misinterpreting you, but it seems like youre suggesting that the system needs to collapse under its own weight before the pendulum will swing back the other way? If that is what youre saying, then i agree wholeheartedly.
Until that happens though, i dont see any laws in this area being enforced in mens favor. This system parasitically feeds off men, and i dont see it willingly letting any go free.
Apollo,
For some suitable definition of collapse yes. I don’t know if everything needs to crumble or you Probsbly just need to go through a hyper inflation that destroys the currency and makes the current system collapse (seems the most likely current path).
Perhaps the collapse itself can be averted by reform by a recognition of the impending disaster but that seems an unlikely outcome if Greece is anything to go by, or Obama’s recent reelection (even if he stole it it still had to be reasonably close for it to be stealable). it doesn’t seem the political will to make the hard choices that will be required are there. Look at Paul Ryan’s really incredibly modest proposal that was treated as the most extreme and beyond even possibly considering. With that sort of enviroment a collapse seems inevitable.
A time point though men won’t put up with it anymore. We see it more and more. They aren’t marrying, they aren’t going to work as hard as a result and so on. That alone will eventually collapse the system as the number of men who realize the circumstances for what they are tend to multiply. Truth will win out in the end, but the ride is going to suck.
That being said, I think you will find in general people are unaware of how insanely unfair the existing system is. Heck I didn’t know until I found the manosphere after my wife left me. I had heard stories but you chalk them up to just being outliers and the unusual corner cases not the norm.
The only people that recognize the lunacy as the norm are the pele that have learned the hard way. That is starting to change but probsbly only because things have gotten so bad with the laws and courts and the SMP and MMP in general and a critical mass has been reached.
Give it time, everything wasn’t broken over a short,period of time, the start of the cracks would seem to be able to be traced to the late 19th century with changes in custody laws. It took 100+ years to get to this point. Fixing it in our lifetimes is likely impossible, turning it around and making a start is the best we can hope for.
[…] Hmmm… The possibility ofthe criminalization of skipping birth control. […]
This is a fantastic precedent…for men. We should see a slew of women getting locked up when they go off birth control in hopes of having an “oops” pregnancy.