Law California makes it illegal to remove condom without consent

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
California became the first state to prohibit “stealthing,” or removing a condom without permission during intercourse, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law Thursday.

The new measure amends the state’s civil code, adding the act to the state’s civil definition of sexual battery. That makes it clear that victims can sue perpetrators for damages, including punitive damages.

It makes it illegal to remove condoms without obtaining verbal consent.

Democratic Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia originally tried to make it a crime in 2017 after a Yale University study that year said acts of stealthing were increasing against both women and gay men.

Legislative analysts said then that it could already be considered misdemeanor sexual battery, though it is rarely prosecuted given the difficulty in proving that a perpetrator acted intentionally instead of accidentally.

The Erotic Service Providers Legal Educational Research Project supported the bill, saying it could allow sex workers to sue clients who remove condoms.

Lawmakers in New York and Wisconsin previously proposed related legislation.

“This law is the first of its kind in the nation, but I urge other states to follow in California’s direction and make it clear that stealthing is not just immoral but illegal,” Garcia said.

Newsom also approved a second Garcia bill, this one treating the rape of a spouse the same as the rape of a non-spouse, removing an exemption to the rape law if the victim is married to the perpetrator.

“Rape is rape,” she said. “And a marriage license is not an excuse for committing one of society’s most violent and sadistic crimes.”

The exemption dates to an era when women were expected to obey their husbands. California had been one of 11 states to distinguish between spousal rape and other forms of sexual assault.

There is no difference in the maximum penalties, but those convicted of spousal rape currently can be eligible for probation instead of prison or jail. They must register as sex offenders under current law only if the act involved the use of force or violence and the spouse was sentenced to state prison.

On Wednesday, Newsom approved extending the statute of limitations for victims to file civil claims if they were sexually assaulted by law enforcement officers who were on duty, in uniform, or armed at the time.

He also approved a bill increasing access to diversion programs for youth who commit nonviolent felonies, with the goal of encouraging more rehabilitation.

Article

Lawyers Nick Rekieta and Ty Beard briefly covered it in Nick's livestream:
 
This law is for AWFLs basically as long as the accused is white.

If the rapist is black, well the charges will be dropped.

Given how cucked and soy looking a lot of modern young white men are combined with how soulless sex has become on woke university campuses, where is the sex happening lol?
 
Quote:
Lawyers Nick Rekieta and Ty Beard briefly covered it in Nick's livestream:

Reply:

I have 3 lawyers on retainer so at any given time, I have to be an asshole on someone I will have immediate representation all things considered.

These two? They make money off of youtube. Rekieta especially. Do you really think I want an attorney flapping their lips about high impact cases out on the internet?

Hell no. IMHO they both made Vic's case harder to win. There is an unwritten rule in the judicial system in my region to not talk about high impact cases. Lawyers like that I want nothing to do with.


As for this stupid law in California, boy there are going to be a lot more babies... increase of STD's , ETC in the state of California and the dumb asses will wonder why????
 
What is an AWFL???

Why are there going to be more babies and STDs if this law makes it illegal to remove a condom without permission?

How does one prove guilt in this situation? It becomes he said she said and you are innocent until proven guilty. How do you prove you did not say something? I.e. a negative? Dumb laws.
Well there has been idiots that have bragged doing this online so... Probably a law that will not be useful often but allows going after those annoying individuals.
 
California should just make sex without a condom illegal, we got enough Californians as it is thanks.
 
Didn't California decriminalize pozzing neg holes? This is going to make that difficult.

I'm shocked. I guess you can't poz that hole unless you are given consent to take the safety off first. So it's better to just specify on Grindr that you are bareback only to avoid this inconvenience. :biggrin:
 
Would it be too optimistic to hope that the law works both ways? If the girl is "in control" and the only one who can manage the condom - say doing some kinky shit where the dude is tied up and blindfolded and she's going to ride his face before riding his dick - it's also equally illegal for her to remove the condom without consent?

It'd also be nice if the verbiage was birth control method neutral, to make it really sex neutral. Either you're being honest about protection or you aren't.
 
Last edited:
Lol, fuck at your own risk, aside from possible criminal charges if a lay is pissed or poor they can just file a civil suit and good luck defending against the preponderance of the evidence.

TL : DR If you have a cock and fuck in California you're a retard.
 
“And a marriage license is not an excuse for committing one of society’s most violent and sadistic crimes.”
sure, you stabbed out her eyes, and pulled out her teeth.. but you kept the condom on, you're a swell guy
 
Good thing they specified this only applies during intercourse. Would be weird to get some state enforced kinky stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom