use the condom is it consensual sex?

Sex with or without a condom is sex. Sex therefore was consented to.

If someone gives preconditions to an interaction, and those preconditions aren't met, that constitutes a violation.

If a woman sets a rubber as a condition and you don't follow it, you have indeed raped her. Because she only agreed to sex with a condom.

It's pretty clear in my view.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you keep your socks on.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you break up with your girlfriend.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you let me have an orgasm first.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you let me be on top,

Or more to the point, what if the woman lies about being on the pill, but isn't. Would that make it "rape"?

etc.

Would breaking those conditions make it "rape"? If not, what is the logical difference?

As I said, it is unacceptable to lie about using a condom or being on both birth control.

But rape? No, it is something different.

A condom prevents exposure to semen. Keeping socks on does no such thing. In essence, this is more a question of are you respecting her rights and desires to not get pregnant, or be exposed to your particular brand of chemical cocktail.

Ignoring that, is in fact, tantamount to rape.

into sex is also a quite serious issue. However, a man always has the choice to use a condom. So claiming to be on birth control does not in fact deprive you of your right to choice. You can always choose to wrap it up. What's she gonna do, refuse have sex? Aww darn. I guess you'll just have to go take care of your own business. The world won't stop just because you refuse to risk getting someone pregnant.

Which makes the whole idea nothing at all like rape.

"Which makes the whole idea nothing at all like rape." - Not sure how to take this. It almost sounds like your trying to create a false equivalency between abstinence and not using a condom.

In any case, we're specifically talking use of prophylactics rather than abstinence. My point was if she isn't willing to have sex with you while you're wearing a condom, then you might want to just pass up sex with her.

It is your choice to use a condom or not. Choosing not to, when being explicitly asked to, it is sexual assault. You can always choose to walk away from sex if she's not willing to have sex with you while using a condom. This isn't about abstinence, as you're attempting to frame it, but about choice. You have one. If you choose not to use it responsibly, then your due all the crap-storm that follows.

You can argue all you want, but I was law enforcement. I'm something of an authority on subject. If at ANY point in time, the female objects to sexual contact, and you proceed with that contact ...no debate... no questions... its rape. And that is for every jurisdiction in the US. Meaning, if you don't wrap it, and she wanted you to, its rape. Its that simple.

True:

If she objects to sex without a condom, and you proceed to have sex with her anyway, over her objections, its rape. Its cut and dry.

I'm not going to quote muni code to you... partly because I don't remember the verbatim code, and partly cause muni code is left intentionally vague to catch scenarios exactly like this. As to law enforcement opinions, you'd surprised just how much of our opinion ends up playing into what laws end up being applicable.

I know of none. If you can't quote one, then it's not cut and dry any more than saying a promise that the laundry was done as a condition of consensual sex is cut and dry.

The key here is that she objects. If she objects, regardless of reason (up to and including the lack of use of a condom), then it is sexual assault.

You're not gonna be happy until you see some laws on though are you? Fine. Here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060 - As you'll see, all that is required is for her to object.

Adding artificial requirements is exactly what you're doing. Nobody is suggesting sex without consent isn't rape. So pretending as much and then arguing from that basis is strawman.

The word "condom" doesn't appear in your cited statute, nor does it appear in the section that defines consent. Nor does the section that defines consent allow for any conditions to be placed on consent. This is what it does say:

The precondition is pivotal as a determinant. The precondition, by its very nature, is an objection to sex, without condom. Thereby establishing that if you commit sexual acts, in violation of the precondition, then its sexual assault.

Sorry, Major Nikon, but your just not on the right side of this one.

Rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you use a condom. Sex proceeds without BC.

Not rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you're on the pill. Sex proceeds without BC.

Its about condom use, as you yourself pointed out just recently. Working a double standard wont help your argument.

Claiming otherwise does not help your argument.

project onto me a stance I neither assumed nor support? Rather petulant and disingenuous of you.
That's fine. This conversation has long since gotten stale anyway.

“If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.”

This isn't; "You didn't mow the lawn... so no sex for you". This is; "You promised to mow the lawn first! We agreed to have sex and now I can see it wasn't done! Rape!"

The post-facto discovery of the "pivotal precondition" doesn't erase the consent.

"You didn't tell me you were married!" ≠ rape
"You told me you were on the pill!" ≠ rape
"You looked a lot better at closing time." ≠ rape

agreeing to use a condom and not doing so as a prerequisite to sex does constitute sexual assault, and there's at least one case I can recall where someone went to jail over exactly that. So there is legal jurisprudence on this issue as well.

If you have a cite for a conviction for such a thing, a link might help your argument.

I'm done with your double standards and goal-post moving.
Our conversation is over and I'm done with you.

Rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you use a condom. Sex proceeds without BC.

Not rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you're on the pill. Sex proceeds without BC.

So it's quite telling how you'd project that behavior on others.

It's also very telling how a request for proof of your assertion gets such a reply.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

for lack of condom use?

Did it have anything to do with having sex without informing the partner of possible exposure to a disease like HIV rather than potentially violating an agreed on verbal contract for use of a condom during sex.

My scope of knowledge on this particular case is limited as I was not at the trial. I know that lack of condom use was a significant determinant in applying the scope of charges. I also know the assailant was found guilty of sexual assault and that it resulted in jail time. I have no additional knowledge on the case beyond that.

Years ago I was having an affair in which I was already prepared to use a condom, but when the big moment came, she said she didn't won't to use it. I asked if she was sure she wouldn't get pregnant, and her response was she was still on the pill (we had previous dates, and were both sure disease & pregnancy were not issues). Her concern was that she hadn't had a bath in a couple of days (she didn't need to remind me of that), and was afraid that going out to dinner later would make me "noticeable." Then she got to kind of liking that prospect (I guess it was a territorial marking instinct). She then assaulted me. Phew! she was right, but I saw her point: Nothing like a little recognition in public!

The point was whether any preconditions to consent exist within the law.

breaking of pre-conditions scenario was silly.

You are describing exactly the same scenario.

... Arguably, it's worse because an unwanted pregnancy is terminable by women, but not men.

I see major nikon asked the same question, but if "fraud=rape" then it really does deserve an answer.

on the pill then decides that since you havent married her already it's ok to stop taking the pill without telling you.

she went on to have an affair then eventually left me for someone else. of course she didnt tell me she was leaving me untill after i helped her move. she moved in with her sister and of course since we werent married i couldnt move in with her b/c of her sisters kids

This is why men have to be especially vigilant when a female wants sex. Why does she want sex? Is she trying to get pregnant? Has she talked about children a lot recently? A woman should respect your desire to not be a father just as much as a man should respect a woman's desire to not be a mother. Always wrap up your little friend unless you're ready for kids. Even in a committed relationship. Perhaps especially.

The technology to do it has existed for 20 years, but due to a variety of reasons, most of which are business and political, it hasn't come to market.

Last I heard about anything in this vein, there was a BC pill that had been made for men. But rather than doing what was intended, it actually did some pretty horrible things to male body chemistry, and I believe it was scrapped.

Most of it is in Australia and India. David Handelsman, medical professor at the University of Sydney and director of the ANZAC Research Institute said:

Is it just me or is all the worthwhile research being done everywhere BUT the US?

There are at least some women who hate the idea of not being the ultimate decision maker on if she and her partner have a child.
Male BC was brought up by a friend of mine a while back, and the two women that accompanied us were quite vocal about not liking the idea. I remember hearing the phrase "Its my decision it get pregnant... not his!" When I suggested it should be something mutually agreed upon if in a relationship, they nearly went ballistic.

I'm sure not all women agree with those two, but men should have the ability to prevent a woman he's sleeping with from getting pregnant by simply taking a pill... just like women can.

It could solve a lot of issues.

All the "but men won't use it" or "I can't trust him to take it" is meant to obfuscate the fundamental issue: power.

I sure would.

"Some women are in love with the idea of being in love and/or having kids. This is why men have to be especially vigilant when a female wants sex."

So, if a woman initiates/wants sex, a man has to be especially vigilant because she might want children (no trust issues with your partner there...no sir!), but if a man wants sex, full steam ahead!

Let me educate you: Women, just like men, can want sex just because they're fucking (appropriate use here) horny. And no siree bob, women can't have sex because they might ACTUALLY BE IN LOVE with their partner.

You've projected a stance onto me that I have not taken. I'll thank you to allow me my own council on how I feel on the issues. That I've not spoken on the issue of men wanting sex, does not in any way equate to your framing of "if a man wants sex, full steam ahead!" You don't get to decide for me what my beliefs are, thank you very much! I'll also thank you to cease and desist your attempts to derail the conversation, if that is indeed what you're trying to do.

I can tell you've not bothered to read my prior posts, or perhaps only read one or two... else you'd see very quickly that my stance is inclusive on choice for both the man and the woman. I find your knee-jerk response insulting, ill-informed and - worthy.

You don't have to agree with me, but you could afford me at least enough respect to see what I've already written before making a presumptive and bombastic retort.

*Edited to represent the correct gender I was speaking to*

and extremely misogynistic. I read all your posts prior to this one... No misunderstanding at all by THIS woman. Good day...

ETA: didn't notice this thread was in the Men's Group... That explains it.

Looks like you'll be the next person to decorate my ignore list.

Its getting workout lately.

Cheers!

It exposes a double standard. There are different laws in different countries relating to this OP, but I don't know of any in the US which would equate a promise of a condom, then not using one as "rape." In some places it is considered "theft by deception."

And leads to all sorts of follow up questions such as value for whom and how much. Are we talking petty theft or grand larceny?

And yes, it does bring up various other questions and concerns. I know this is the case in Israel, (I believe) Greece, and the Czech Republic. There are a few other countries too, Ireland is one, I think. Someone posted about these situations and the countries that have these unusual interpretations a few years back. To be honest, it may have been at DU2.

However, I would be surprised if anyone anywhere has defined it as rape.

A woman who has sex with a man who falsely claims to be infertile (for whatever reason) risks the expenses related to ending that unwanted pregnancy.
A man who has sex with a woman "on the pill" incurs the expense of raising his unwanted child to adulthood.

But not all sex has tangible consequences, in fact most of it doesn't.

I certainly wouldn't agree that unprotected sex is rape, but I would say that the degree of fraudulent harm involved in the pill example is at least as severe as that in the condom one.

But what some are arguing is that consensual, but duplicitous sex without a condom is rape, but consensual, but duplicitous sex without other forms of BC is not. The doublethink is very strong here.

Just as I think a woman who tampers with condoms or does not use birth control when they say they are is also committing a crime.

I am consistent on this. Anyone who thinks there should be a different standard for each gender should be ashamed of themselves.

this happening? Baseline assumption woman says let's have sex, but you need to wear a condom. If the man does not put on said condom, the woman reiterates that the condom is required, the man continues the act over her objections. Can we agree that is unambiguously rape? How about if the man does not put on a condom, proceeds to continue the sex, but this time the woman although not wanting to doesn't take this opportunity to reiterate her requirement? Lastly, what if the man puts the condom on, but purposely slips it off and the woman is unaware until the act is completed.
I believe that any of those scenarios can see the man successfully prosecuted for rape. The only way to avoid that is if he gets pretty clear consent to disregard the wear a condom condition. Reality is that the man is rarely going to face any consequences. The woman is going to be subject to slut shaming and subjected to a general disbelief that she "resisted enough".
So no I don't belive "have sex without a condom" is mentioned in any rape laws. I also don't see how you are not having unconsentual sex If that is a condition and you ignore it.

Whether or not there's a condom involved is irrelevant.

Man tells woman he doesn't want to have sex unless she is current on the pill. Woman assures man she is current on the pill. Sex proceeds even though woman knows she isn't on the pill.

Is this rape?

If the answer is no (and I'm pretty sure it is), then your 2nd and 3rd scenario either has the same answer, or there's a serious double standard which is being conveniently ignored.