Consent Change Request: Fill & Download for Free

As a man who has experienced emotional and sexual abuse from women in both childhood and adulthood (which is far more common than many realize: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex), I oppose the male right to a 'paper abortion'. Before I present my argument against it though, I shall first examine the feminist and pro-choice arguments for and against it (both of which I oppose).Many of the more facile feminists and pro-choice advocates will oppose the 'paper abortion' solely on the a priori presumption that a man cannot impregnate a woman against his will and so should accept responsibility for his decisions. This reveals gross ignorance of male physiology. A man can impregnate a woman while passed-out drunk on the floor with his pants pulled down and a woman riding him. A penis can enlarge and even ejaculate as a physiological response to physical stimulation even when a man is unconscious. I've never experienced that myself but have read and heard of cases of it.It also reveals gross ignorance of male culture. Even when the man is fully conscious and physically stronger than the woman, certain cultural factors could cause him to hesitate to escale resistance beyond limits that threaten her physical safety. A female aggressor who senses such hesitation in a male victim will continue to escalate her aggression in the knowledge that he will escalate his resistance only so far before pausing to consider whether he is willing to risk injuring her to defend himself, and that alone can buy her all of the time she needs since it's not every day that a man has to contemplate whether he is willing to fight a woman at the risk of causing her serious physical injury. Even then, the male victim can become aroused and ejaculate against his will. I have experienced such an assault myself.Furthermore, a woman can pressure a man into sex through verbal and emotional coercion, unwanted touching, and even blackmail such as by threatening suicide if he leaves her (all of which I have experienced myself).More knowledgeable feminists and pro-choice advocates with a deeper understanding of male physiology and culture but still ignoring deeper considerations might favour the male right to the 'paper abortion' on a much more solid rationale than the facile feminist and pro-choice arguments against it (that the male victim would not have consented to the sexual act leading to the pregnancy, that especially the female sexual assault of a male can be extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the right to a paper abortion could deter a female would-be aggressor from sexually assaulting a man in the first place, that conception resulting from sexual assault can significantly affect the male victim for the rest of his life whether the woman aborts or not, and that the paper abortion would assimilate male sexual and reproductive rights to feminist and pro-choice ones so as to reduce criticisms of unequal sexual and reproductive rights between men and women).While laws have adapted much to female physiological and cultural realities over the decades, they have failed to consider male physiology and culture. For the most part, feminists have just presumed, based on female physiology and culture, that men would just want the same sexual rights as women, confusing sameness for equality.Though I acknowledge that the feminist and pro-choice arguments in favour of the male right to a paper abortion rest on much more solid ground than the facile feminist and pro-choice arguments against it, I still fundamentally disagree with the male right to a paper abortion on a number of other grounds and question how many male victims of female sexual aggression have even been consulted on this matter. My impression is that feminists, without consulting male victims, simply presume that because many women favour the right to a physical abortion, that it goes without saying that men would support the right to a paper abortion as the male equivalent of a physical abortion. In reality, I believe that many male victims would oppose the right to a paper abortion for a number of reasons that feminists who simply apply feminist theories to male physiology and culture have failed to consider.Firstly, the law should explicitly recognize a man's (or even the parents of a pubescent boy's) parental obligations as stemming not from his consent to the sexual act leading to the conception (or even from his or his aggressor's age at the time of conception) but rather from his biological paternity alone. Otherwise it would be too easy for a man to consent to a sexual act with a woman or even rape her (which is also difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt) leading to a pregnancy and then applying for a paper abortion so as to forfeit any parental obligation which in turn could put financial pressure on the mother to abort against her preference to keep the child. Any advocacy for men's sexual and reproductive rights should not come at the expense of women's and children's. Even when the female aggressor is an adult and the male victim a minor and sexual assault can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the male victim's rights should never come at the expense of the child's. How much financial, mental-health, and other assistance the state should offer male victims of female sexual assault, and how much money the state should invest in educating the public about this phenomenon, is a separate matter worthy of discussion, but never at the expense of the child.Secondly, while the right to a paper abortion could deter some female sexual aggression against men, it would probably not deter many since probably few women sexually assault a man with the intention of delivering a baby resulting from it. Worse yet, it could encourage more male sexual assaults against women. Never should we defend men's sexual and reproductive rights at the expense of women's and children's.Thirdly, recognising that, in practical terms, a male's reproductive rights end at conception (since even where abortion is illegal, a woman can always visit a jurisdiction that allows it or secretly obtain an illegal abortion and even keep the pregnancy itself a secret from the father, and even a convicted female aggressor can choose to deliver the male victim's child in prison against his preference for an abortion), men's sexual and reproductive rights should apply not after but rather prior to conception.One fundamental difference concerns the conflict between sexual freedom vs. sexual protection under the law. Many feminists, having full control over a pregnancy even after conception, prefer maximum sexual freedom under the law even if it may increase the rate of male rapes against women (since a woman always has the option of aborting any resulting child afterwards). Male victims of female sexual abuse and those vulnerable to such abuse, recognising how they lose all control over a pregnancy from conception onward, do not enjoy such a luxury and must therefore deter an assault prior to conception. With that in mind, some of them would happily exchange excessive male sexual freedom under the law for more male sexual protection under the law. The question then becomes how to balance the feminist preference for extreme sexual freedom under the law and vulnerable males' preference for more reasonable sexual protection under the law. One solution could be to extend the feminist and pro-choice principle of 'my-body-my-choice' to apply to men's bodies too.Keeping in mind physiological and cultural differences between men and women, I believe that the law should provide equal but different sexual and reproductive rights to men and women respectively in consideration of these differences, rather than just apply feminist theory (which revolves primarily around women's physiological and cultural realities) to male seual rights.Given how difficult female sexual aggression against a male can be to prove beyond reasonable doubt and how much stigma may be attached to it, and the potential life-long consequences of imposing paternal obligations on a man who impregnated a woman against his consent or through coerced consent under duress, I would propose a law that would acknowledge the conflict between male sexual freedoms vs. male sexual protections under the law and that would give every male, as of the age of fifteen, the right to forfeit excessive male sexual freedom in favour of more reasonable male sexual protection under the law. While the more facile feminists are correct in saying that a man must decide prior to conception, the law should also give makes more effective tools with which to enforce their decision against more sexually aggressive women.While I agree with the intent behind the paper abortion, I don't believe that is the best way to protect men since it would then come at the expense of women and children. At the same time, I don't believe that keeping the laws skewed in favour of women at the expense of men is a solution either. Instead, I think that the male right to Self-exclusion as a way to more effectively deter female sexual assaults, based on the male version of the principle of 'my-body-my-choice', might prove preferable to balance male and female sexual rights without the one compromising the other.For example, the Government of Canada could issue a five-year passport to any Canadian over the age of fifteen free of charge and any Canadian male over the age of fifteen could sign into his online passport account to self-exclude from the right to consent to fornicate under threat of a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence, with the self-exclusion lasting for the duration of the validity of the passport with an option for autorenewal of the self-exclusion with every renewal of the passport. Should he choose to self-exclude, it would then put any woman other than his wife who even so much as encourages him to have sex with her at risk of a heavy fine for incitement to commit a self-exclusion offence. While a female victim of rape can still decide whether or not to have an abortion, a male victim of sexual assault is powerless but still responsible from conception onward and so must have the power to adequately deter a female assault prior to conception.The concept of restricting an adult male's sexual freedom is not as foreign as some might think. Different professional standards prevent a female professor, physician, or therapist from engaging in sexual relations with even her adult male student or patient for instance. However, just as a professor or physician can exploit a vulnerable male student or patient, any woman could exploit the vulnerability of a male who has experienced childhood abuse; so why should such restrictions apply only to professionals and not to everyone? We find a similar concept in self-exclusion from casinos.Once a man chooses to self-exclude, while he himself could face a fine for consenting to fornicate, any woman (professional or otherwise) could likewise face a heavy fine for inciting him to it. This would deter him from contributing negligently to his own assault (by consenting to fornicate) and her from assaulting him so as to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.Seeing how choosing to self-exclude from the right to fornicate could increase the risk of a woman blackmailing a man through threats of a false rape accusation, self-exclusion could come with a right, on request, to an inquisitorial trial, protection from rape-shield laws, the presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and a trial directly in Esperanto without the aid of an interpreter.When my wife was accused of an immigration violation a few years ago, the Minister's counsel refused to present witnesses for questioning and insisted that if my wife's counsel wanted the names of the witnesses, she'd need to make an application through the Access-to-Information Act as an unjust delaying tactic to deter my wife from choosing that option and so cause herself further delays. The adversarial trial allowed the Minister's counsel to unjustly exploit her position as the gatekeeper to the available exculpatory evidence. The right to an inquisitorial trial could empower the judge to seek evidence himself and so reduce either side's ability to suppress any relevant evidence for or against the accused.In my wife's case, the Ottawa police and CBSA reports were written in such broken English that I struggled to decypher parts of them and the parts that I could decypher revealed that the CBSA interviewing officer had misinterpreted many of the answers to her questions. The Montreal hearing transcript revealed that the Minister's counsel so struggled to understand an affidavit in Standard English that the IB member needed to correct her on multiple occasions (and my wife's counsel sometimes assisted the IB member's English too). The Ottawa CBSA later misinterpreted the IB nember's ruling in my wife's favour written in Standard English so as to refuse to return her passport until her counsel threatened legal action against the local CBSA should it not return it to her. The Minister appealed and, at the IRB hearing, the Minister's counsel misinterpreted my answer in Standard English to a question of hers as conflicting with the affidavit even though the two agreed. When I looked to the IRB member for correction, he seemed oblivious to the basic linguistic error. I wanted to switch to French but my wife's counsel didn't know French and I'd not requested a French interpreter ahead of time. I found myself unable to communicate clearly with the Minister's counsel and fearful of coming across as insulting or condescending by correcting her basic English. The adversarial system only aggravated the language barriers. Functional illiteracy in the official language of work is not unique to law enforcement and the immigration system either:Official bilingualism in Canada - WikipediaAccording to research, a French speaker could learn as much Esperanto in 150 hours as he could English in around 1,500 hours. To put this into perspective, a Quebecer who starts to learn Esperanto at the age of eight for fifty hours per year for six consecutive years could achieve the same level in Esperanto by the age of fifteen as he could in English after 3,000 hours of instruction, such as is simply not possible in the Quebec public-school system. A person should enjoy a fundamental right to a trial in a clear language that all participants at the trial could master in a reasonably short time. Never should a person be tried in a broken language.Had my wife enjoyed the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the CBSA would never have wasted its time referring her to the IB in the first place given the broken English of the reports against her and the anonimity of the witnesses involved.While a male (or his parents, depending on his age) should still be held responsible for a child that he conceives through a sexual assault (for the child's sake), the fact that incitement to commit a self-exclusion offence (in this case, to fornicate) would be much easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt than sexual assault (and result in a heavy fine even when assault cannot be proved) would provide a stronger deterrent against a woman sexually assaulting a self-excluded man in the first place. Should a man choose to not self-exclude, a woman sexually assaults him, and he finds himself unable to have her convicted of anything while still being held responsible for the child, then he would need to live with the consequences of his decision (if all but the sexual assault is legal and the alleged assault occurs behind closed doors, then there is only so much that a judge can do without compromising the presumption of innocence and due process: it would be up to the male to decide whether he wants more sexual freedom or protection under the law and accept the consequences either way).The female sexual assault of males can take on a very different form than the reverse. In my case, my babysitter bribed me through candy money when I was seven and eight years old before I even understood sexual pleasure. When I was eighteen and my ex-wife seventeen, she pleaded, begged, and pouted for me to spend the night at her home (paid for by her parents while she was applying for refugee status in Canada) and, stuck in the midst of an intense anxiety attack (probably resulting from my childhood abuse), I'd consented just to excape the excruciating anxiety attacks after she refused to take no for answer. This soon became a daily occurrence. From there it escalated to unwanted touching, then unwanted sex, then an unwanted sexual relationship, and finally an unwanted marriage following threats of suicide on her part if I didn't marry her.The fact that the female sexual abuse of males will more usually involve targeting a more vulnerable male and then applying verbal and emotional coercion, unwanted touching, and blackmail rather than the use of physical force simply makes it even more difficult for him to seek help since the abuse will often involve acquiring his coerced consent under duress.Even when a woman does use aggressive physical force against a non-consenting male, many psychological, legal, and cultural factors can prove more important than mere physical strength. Immediately after separation, I left to work in China and the divorce was finalized while I worked abroad.In China, I'd foolishly contributed negligently to my own sexual assault by consenting to protected sex with a woman I didn't know well.She decided that she wanted unprotected sex. At first, thinking it a misunderstanding, I resisted gently. She escalated the aggression while laughing, so I further escalated my resistance albeit within limits that didn't risk her physical safety. Still finding it humorous, she again escalated the aggression. At that point, though I was more than strong enough to escalate the resistance further to defend myself, I hesitated to do so out of a fear of causing her serious physical injury or worse (in spite of her almost headbutting my nose as I'd torn my wrists from her grips). Furthermore, the fact that she was Chinese and I a foreign national didn't help my case and, worse yet, she was a woman, I a man, and I was physically stronger than she was. As she escalated the aggression, I just had to be willing to escalate my resistance to the same level even at the risk of causing her serious physical injury or worse (since she was not cooperating in the least). In spite of my greater physical strength, she held both the citizenship and female cards in her favour. Had I even unintentionally caused her serious physical injury or worse, I could have faced severe legal consequences for having dared to risk injuring a woman while defending myself against her in her country. In the end, she got what she wanted. Just as a woman can experience orgasm while being raped by a man, so can a man experience it while being sexually assaulted by a woman.Without excusing her behaviour, I must be fair in acknowledging that my consenting to protected sex would logically have made it that much more difficult for a prosecutor to then prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had not consented to unprotected sex. To be fair, the victim must accept responsibility for contributory negligence too and not expect due process to be bent by rape-shield laws for instance.I question how Canadian law (not in theory but in practice) would deal with a male foreign national injuring a Canadian woman against whom he was defending his sexual boundaries. Firstly, even without proof beyond reasonable doubt as is needed at a criminal trial, he could simply be referred to the IB where he could be removed from Canada for a year on a mere balance of probabilities. Furthermore, he might face police and CBSA reports in broken English and a Minister's counsel or judge with weak English skills, with the Minister's counsel acting as the gatekeeper with an incentive to suppress any exculpatory evidence at an adversarial trial.Guilt beyond reasonable doubt can protect the victim too. My ex-wife had a precarious position in Canada as a refugee claimant and probably suffered severe trauma of her own. As a result, even though she was verbally and emotionally coercive, touched me against my will, and pressured me into first a romantic and then a sexual relationship through escalating pressure finally rising to threats of suicide if I did not marry her, and even though I wanted help, I still hesitated to report her since while I believed that she did deserve some kind of punishment, compassion still made me not want to risk her freedom to remain in Canada. Had I self-excluded and a prosecutor had the option of charging my ex-wife for incitement to commit a self-exclusion offence, then I might have happily accepted a fine for consenting to fornicate (assuming the judge didn't dismiss it on the grounds of consent under duress) if it could lead to her receiving a heavy fine for incitement as a strong deterrent too without risking her immigration status as long as she could pay the fine or do community service to compensate for any inability to pay. The ability to seek protection and justice without revenge could encourage more Canadian victims of sexual abuse from foreign nationals to seek the help they may need. We should not presume that a victim seeking help or justice is necessarily seeking hot-blooded revenge against an abuser.Self-exclusion would not be perfect though.Firstly, even with the controls above, a self-excluded man and any woman other than his wife who engages in a sexual interaction with him would be more vulnerable to consequences resulting from a false sexual-assault accusation against them (since he could pay a fine for mere consent to fornicate and she for incitement to do so even without any proof of actual sexual assault) . That said, any self-excluded man could protect himself by not consenting and any woman by not encouraging any self-excluded man to do so. It would be easy for her to ask him to send her an email from his passport account confirming hist status as self-excluded or not. While this could delay a sexual relationship somewhat, a woman enjoys no more right to the male body than a man does to the fenale one; abd given the potential for life-changing consequences over which the man would have no control after conception, a somewhat delayed sexual relationship is a fair sacrifice on the part of women in exchange for guaranteed paternal obligations even if a judge should convict the mother of having sexually assaulted the father.Secondly, while self-exclusion could deter many female would-be aggressors, it might not deter all of them. As a result, some men would still impregnate women without their consent or through coersed consent under duress. Without the right to a paper abortion, that man could unfortunately find himself responsible for a child resulting from his sexual assault. However, the mother could have her parental rights revoked if convicted of sexually assaulting the father and, even if not convicted and she forces the man to share custody with her, the state could still provide him with psychiatric help and financial assistance even if there are only reasonable grounds to believe that the mother sexually assaulted him.While it might seem cruel to subject a man such an injustice, I fear that the alternative of the 'paper abortion' could create an even greater injustice by allowing a freely consenting or even aggressive father who rapes the mother to forfeit his obligations. Between these two injustices, I prefer the lesser one over the greater one.I think we also need public education about how sexual assault does not discriminate based on race. I'm white and my babysitter who molested me for around a year from the ages of seven to eight was white too. My ex-wife who abused me both emotionally and sexually through verbal and emotional coercion, unwanted touching, and severe blackmail was Ethiopian. A Chinese woman had used aggressive physical force and exploited the element of surprise to force me into unprotected sex abroad: when I visited a psychiatrist for depression a few days later, though we had mastered five languages between us, we had mastered not one in common so he couldn't help me and I walked away to deal with my emotions on my own.