E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Why Policy Should Pay Attention To First Encounter Sex
Ian Ayres
Thank you Instapundit. The New York Times writer, CHRISTOPHER SHEA, saw my earlier post on Criminalizing Reckless Sex, when Glen Reynolds linked to it. And the Times Sunday Magazine included the idea in today's "The Year in Ideas" issue:
Ayres and Baker say that raising a legal obstacle to first-time sex without a
condom would reap benefits for public health. ''The lion's share of sexually
transmitted infections are caused by first-time sexual encounters,'' they argue
on the legal-affairs Web site Balkinization. Moreover, failure to wear a condom
may amount to prima facie evidence of disdain for women: ''Few men careful
enough to use a condom are reckless enough to rape. The same recklessness that
causes men to overlook the risk of disease and pregnancy can also lead them to
overlook whether the woman has truly consented.''
Lots of people reasonably are concerned about the criminalization of sexual expression. But the core of this idea is that society needs to pay more attention to the dangers of first-encounter sex. 45% of all sexual pairings are one night stands. Getting unmarried people to use condoms the first time they had sex with someone else -- no matter what -- might make substantial progress on the fight to control sexually transmitted diseases.
Posted
3:12 PM
by Ian Ayres [link]
Comments:
Does this include all the teenagers whose first use would not involve a condom? Is the woman in each case assumed to not have consented? Will the use of a condom be a defense against rape (given the analogy supplied)? What will the proof offered that it was a first encounter or a condom was use? Would we set up a he said/she said (for turn the "innocent" woman against the man?) situation? Will condom use be required now, even if the woman is using birth control, and it truly is a "first time" scenario?
As when this first was suggested, the problems that arise in one's mind are myriad. And, to answer the questions of some of the original post, apparently these guys are serious.
What is the citation for the 45% figure? It's not cited in your previous post or (as far as I can tell with a search) in the linked SSRN paper, and I find it extremely dubious. Roughly that proportion of men report having had sex on a first date, ever. Mean sexual frequency is much higher inside marriage than outside. (A few single people have lots of sex with lots of partners, but thye're rare exceptions.) For 45% of all sexual encounters to be one-night stands, there'd have to be an absolutely prodigious number of people with very high total numbers of sexual partners, to outweigh all the sex within marriage and within medium- and long-term non-marital relationships, and that's generally not what the data show.
would this require people to keep used condoms from first-time encounters until the statute of limitations from your proposed policy is expired? would it be required for women to wear dental dams if they receive oral happiness?
I could go on, but the question I have is why legislate something like this? protecting people from making mistakes seems like a noble idea, but only succeeds in providing a platform for removing more freedoms later.
here's an idea: instead of legislating protective measures, why not allow the discussion of morality based on religious principles (from a range of religions) as part of sex ed, giving kids more than just a 'wrap it up' lesson.
teach kids that sex can be dangerous physically, and introduce reasons to not have sex. or maybe just be more careful about who they are having sex with.
it's not an endorsement of religion and morality, just an open discussion of sexual mores based on historical record and a variety of viewpoints.
of course, mixing religion and morality into education may seem unpalatable to some, but it's a lot less offensive than a freezer full of scumbags, don't you think?
This is what I have been searching in quite a few web pages and I ultimately identified it right here. Wonderful post. I am so impressed. Could under no circumstances imagine of these a point is attainable with it…I imagine you have a excellent information in particular while dealings with these kinds of topics.