Link to the decision: R. v. Hutchinson
Guess he’d been reading too much xkcd.
In retrospect, I just noticed how the headline from that article sounds like a bad Chinese fortune cookie.
^This! Confucius say: Man who poke hole in condom guilty of sexual assault.
Not every lie told to a woman to get her to have sex constitutes fraud. Only those that carry a significant risk of harm can be considered as negating the consent to sexual intercourse. “Harm” was defined not only as physical harm but something such as a pregnancy that would cause profound changes in a woman’s body.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/court-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/article/375156#ixzz2vUAuJQXH
Whew! said every teenager trying to score.
So she wasn’t getting what she thought she was getting, but it was free right?
Here’s your free baby. Wait, I didn’t want a baby, I wanted just sex.
So if someone gives me a box of chocolates for free and says they have nuts in them, but they turn out to not have nuts, that’s fraud. Ok.
Not quite. If someone gives you a box of chocolates for free and says they have no nuts. But they actually have nuts and you are allergic to nuts (and they know both these things), they should be on the hook for it.
Well yes, promising one thing but delivering another is fraud.
For it to be assault the analogy works better the other way. Say I’m allergic to nuts and you give me a free box of chocolates but promise there are no nuts in them.
Okay that’s a little intense for the pregnancy angle, how about I’m lactose intolerant and you promise me that they’re lactose free fake chocolate but they’re not. That’s where you move into assault territory.
So they were playing cowboys and indians and she was expecting that the gun wasn’t loaded, but it was loaded, loaded with SPERM!
This makes a bit more sense to me now.
Does anyone know what would/could happen if the woman was the one poking holes in the condom or claiming to be on birth control pills but wasn’t?
The Criminal Code actually has an offence of administering a noxious substance, which I would think would be a more likely choice for a charge.
Not according to the last 45 seconds of every porno I’VE ever seen.
Fraud in the inducement?
But not likely criminal assault, since the pregnancy wouldn’t affect his body physically in the same way as when the roles are reversed.
Yes, I believe it’s well-settled, at least in American law, what happens: Sire is liable for 18 years of child-support, just the same.
The prevailing logic is: The needs and best interest of the kid is paramount over all other considerations, and the kid needs the child support.
Oh for heavens sake: this isn’t about the existance or not of a child, and who is responsible for its potential upkeep.
It is about a man attempting to cause serious physical harm to another person, and being convicted for it, as he should be.
Stop bringing up stupid shit. In the reverse situation, the man would not be physically harmed, so the charge is not assault (unless she knowingly has an STD or something, then you might have a point.)
How gullible would someone have to be? Take the pill for gosh sake.
Condoms break. They tear. Stupid, spiteful men prick holes in them. Take the pill unless you want to get knocked up.
Double protection with the pill and a condom means no unwanted babies. Simple and works every time.
No it doesn’t… we’ve got at least two Dopers who got pregnant while doubling up. I know several irl. The pill isn’t 100% effective, condoms aren’t 100% effective, their combination is more effective than either but still not perfect. Plus some women simply can’t take the Pill (side effects of “in the ER with projectile vomit”, for example).