# Supreme Court of Canada: Man who poked holes in condoms guilty of sexual assault **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 8, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201 "2014-03-08T16:34:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/1 "2014-03-08T16:34:13Z")
> [@](#): > > The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction of a man for sexual assault after he punctured condoms he used in an attempt to get his girlfriend pregnant and save their relationship. > > Canada’s top court handed down its unanimous decision in the case of _R v. Hutchinson_ yesterday. The justices found although Craig Jaret Hutchinson’s girlfriend consented to have sexual intercourse with him, she did so with him using a condom. Poking holes in the condom so it would not prevent pregnancy constituted fraud and negated the consent. [Court: Man who poked holes in condoms guilty of sexual assault.](http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/court-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/article/375156#ixzz2vODG6osw) Link to the decision: [R. v. Hutchinson](http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13511/index.do) ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/2 "2014-03-09T01:23:28Z")
Holey moley! ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/3 "2014-03-09T01:30:32Z")
Guess he’d been reading [too much xkcd](https://xkcd.com/72/). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/4 "2014-03-09T02:41:19Z")
In retrospect, I just noticed how the headline from that article sounds like a bad Chinese fortune cookie. ---
**Author:** ![oz0ne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9fc348/32.png) [@oz0ne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oz0ne)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/5 "2014-03-09T13:36:18Z")
^This! Confucius say: Man who poke hole in condom guilty of sexual assault. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/6 "2014-03-09T17:00:40Z")
**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](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. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/7 "2014-03-09T18:45:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/8 "2014-03-09T18:47:38Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Moonlitherial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Moonlitherial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonlitherial)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/9 "2014-03-09T18:49:32Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/10 "2014-03-09T19:43:24Z")
So they were playing cowboys and indians and she was expecting that the gun wasn’t loaded, but it was loaded, loaded with SPERM! ---
**Author:** ![Alba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Alba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alba)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/11 "2014-03-10T07:23:06Z")
> [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](#): > > **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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/12 "2014-03-10T07:56:23Z")
> [@Moonlitherial](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/13 "2014-03-10T19:38:04Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![llcoolbj77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/eb9ed0/32.png) [@llcoolbj77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llcoolbj77)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/14 "2014-03-10T20:19:34Z")
> [@Alba](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/15 "2014-03-11T06:22:55Z")
> [@Alba](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Septima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Septima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Septima)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/16 "2014-03-11T10:14:02Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/17 "2014-03-11T17:23:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault/683201/18 "2014-03-11T17:35:41Z")
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).