Following up the previous post, I went back and read their whole PDF describing their proposal and the reasoning behind it. If anything, it is actually worse than the summary, and worse than I expected.

"Sex is Dangerous." Ok, come on now. This HAS to be a troll for flames. This is so simple, inflammatory, and ridiculous that there's no other explanation. Ok, so I grant the premise that sex can be dangerous. So can skydiving, driving, drinking milk past the expiration date, swimming, taking a bath (you might drown), and walking on the sidewalk.

"... casual sex is so emotionally dangerous; [because] it might actually feel like rape to one of the participants." Implies all casual sex could be rape, and that the rapist would not know or care that it was.

"The exact number of people carrying STDs cannot be determined because many STDs have no symptoms..." what.

The paper slips casually (pun intended) between discussing casual sex and "unwanted" sex, intentionaly (in my opinion) confusing the reader into correlating casual sex with rape.

"Minimally regulating this small subset of sexuality can pay big dividends." I'm glad they came right out and admitted their intention of regulating sex between consenting adults.

"The harm done by nonconsensual sex is described as closer to fatal." According to this paper, if a man doesn't wear a condom during consensual sex, he's about 1.75 steps away from murder.

They slip some very basic mathematics in, apparently to look more scholarly.

It's amazing how much time they spend talking about the emotional effects of non consentual sex, only to end up proposing a law requiring a condom, which only protects from the physical effects! And of course, casual sex is presumed to border on non-consentual.

The law does not specifically mention men, but of course in every example they presume women would be the victims. Until the very end, when they mention gays. That makes sense in a very cynical fashion: they'll draft the law and only talk about straight couples, but only prosecute gays for actually breaking it.

Danger, danger, danger, every time you have sex you risk grave, lifelong injuries! The horror!

What about a rapist who wears a condom? Their reasoning and this law imply he is innocent of sexual assault. Ok, later on they address this. The solution? More laws! Simply pass another law saying condom use doesn't mean you're innocent of rape. Oh, and even though men are all but exclusively prosecuted by this law, it's OK, because women rarely make false claims. (Yes, it says that, page 54.) And the law is good, because you probably aren't affected by it (pg 64).

The whole paper smacks of someone who watched too much Lifetime network, and felt the need to spread the fear. That and someone was pissed off that Kobe's rape charges were dropped.

This law condescendingly takes power away from women and puts all the responsibility for determining if a sexual encounter is consensual on the man. Of course, the statistical outcome from this law would be MORE sexual assaults, since the definition would be broadened. (I'm sure the authors would point to that increase as evidence that even stricter sexual assault laws would be needed.)

They say the punishment is only a "mild sanction" of "three months". Three months probation? Jail?!?? For not using a condom the first time you fuck someone? You know, if people aren't deterred by the potential health effects (already discussed in abundance), I doubt a criminal sentence will have any effect.

I really tried to get through this paper and present serious counter points, but it's just too ridiculous. I half expected to get to the end of this paper to read "LOL, we were joking all along! PRANKED!"


Take responsibility for your sex life, take responsibility for your own protection from disease and pregnancy. Don't let the government, and histrionic wanna-be lawmakers do it for you.

Ian Ayres & Katharine Baker bring up the problems of unprotected casual sex, and propose a perfectly sensible law to deal with these moral transgressions.

Unprotected first-encounters are correlated with pregnancy. The same recklessness that causes women to overlook the risk of pregnancy can also lead them to overlook whether the man has truly agreed to father a child.

Illegitimate children cost this country billions of dollars in welfare and child support. Men who unintentionally or unwillingly become fathers may lose up to 1/3 of their pre-tax income for eighteen years supporting children of a woman they had sex with only once.

A new crime of “reckless sexual conduct” should target unprotected first encounters. To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of birth control. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to potential fatherhood.

When pregnancy happens early in a relationship, female misperception is a major cause. Giving women a new incentive to use birth control in first-time sexual encounters should significantly reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy. The very act of pausing to use birth control should increase deliberation and communication. Declaring fertility will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and increase the percentage of voluntary child support.

The crime of reckless sexual assault would also be a powerful prosecutorial tool for the thousands of child support cases that are simply unfair under current law.

Proof of this type of reckless conduct should be sufficient to shift the burden to women to prove consent. The message to women is not necessarily to forego one-night stands, but rather to use birth control or communicate enough so that you can trust your partner.

The new crime of reckless sex would send a clear message that society can punish reckless behavior because it is physically and emotionally damaging to uninformed men and unwanted children.

We are all hurt by a world in which sex is reduced to a base, non-communicative physical act. People on the right and the left side of the political spectrum can agree that extremely casual, unprotected sex does little good for anyone and has the potential to do much harm.

A crime of reckless sex, by encouraging women to protect their sexual partners from disease and pregnancy, can simultaneously encourage women to deliberate and communicate in a way that promotes public health and greatly reduces unwanted pregnancy.

They have drafted a model statute (just 200 words) expressly codifying this new crime. In a forthcoming law review article in The University of Chicago Law Review, They provide a more in depth defense of the statute.


Or maybe I'm just parodying a couple of idiots.

edit: I was partially inspired by this hilarious Something Awful article which called pregnancy "the gravest STD of them all".

edit2: I should also say (seriously) that I vehemently disagree that casual sex does little good. Sex is good exercise and emotionally rewarding. On top of that it's the best anti-depressant ever.