Your search

Historically, homosexuality and prostitution were both branded immoral vices that required criminalization, despite the fact that they were also considered ‘victimless crimes.’ Yet, in contemporary Canadian society, gays and lesbians have gained wide social acceptance and legal rights, while the sex trade has become more criminalized, stigmatized, and, for clients or third parties, vilified. This article explores the reasons for this divergence. First, drawing on radical queer critique, I problematize this framing, arguing that the equality and rights-based victories for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community did not necessarily benefit all of its members. Building on this insight, I argue that those queers who are unable or uninterested in accessing the benefits ushered in by ‘gay rights’ have identities, proclivities, and vulnerabilities that overlap with those of sex workers and/or their clients. Part I of the article sets the socio-legal and political context, providing succinct overviews of key developments relating to gay and lesbian rights and of key developments relating to sex trade regulation, focusing primarily on the last fifty years. Part II analyses how gay/lesbian mainstream acceptance and the queer/sex trade marginalization occurred through overlapping discourses and laws related to privacy, bawdy houses/indecency, disease, spousal/marital relations, and children. I end with a consideration of the intersectionality between queerness and the sex trade, both in terms of subjectivities and non-normative sexual practices.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

"First published in 1945, Glanville Williams: Learning the Law has been introducing students to the foundation skills needed to study law effectively for over 70 years. Now in its 17th edition, it is still the must-have book for every student embarking upon a law degree. [This book] introduces students to the basic legal materials such as statutes and case law, and explains how these are to be read and interpreted in the light of common law doctrines of precedent. [It] explains how legal problems are to be solved and discussed in the examination room [and] offers advice on study methods, exam preparation, time and stress management. [It] discusses the methods of legal research, and explains where to look for the law, both on paper and electronically [and] covers participation in moots, mock trials and other competitions. [It] discusses employment prospects and gives advice on seeking and obtaining work [and] provides recommendations for further reading within and outside the law." --publisher's description.

The purpose of this study was to investigate nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR), also termed “stealthing,” which involves a male partner removing a condom during sex without knowledge or consent. Young women (N = 364) provided self-report data on sociodemographic characteristics, NCCR experiences, and sexual self-perceptions. Almost 10% of the participants reported experiencing NCCR, with increased risk linked to nonheterosexuality, nonexclusive relationship status, and more sexual partners. Women with NCCR histories reported less confidence to refuse unwanted sexual advances and felt less in control of themselves as sexual beings. Together, the findings suggested NCCR is a somewhat common sexual risk behavior which may pose acute and sustained psychosexual harm to victims.

For more than a century, Black's Law Dictionary has been the gold standard for the language of law. This edition contains more than 50,000 terms, including more than 7,500 terms new to this edition. It also features expanded bibliographic coverage, definitions of more than 1,000 law-related abbreviations and acronyms, and reviewed and edited Latin maxims

Neil Duxbury examines how precedents constrain legal decision-makers and how legal decision-makers relax and avoid those constraints. There is no single principle or theory which explains the authority of precedent but rather a number of arguments which raise rebuttable presumptions in favour of precedent-following. This book examines the force and the limitations of these arguments and shows that although the principal requirement of the doctrine of precedent is that courts respect earlier judicial decisions on materially identical facts, the doctrine also requires courts to depart from such decisions when following them would perpetuate legal error or injustice. Not only do judicial precedents not 'bind' judges in the classical-positivist sense, but, were they to do so, they would be ill suited to common-law decision-making. Combining historical inquiry and philosophical analysis, this book will assist anyone seeking to understand how precedent operates as a common-law doctrine.

Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of violence perpetuated against women. It occurs when male partners adopt behaviors meant to control a woman’s birth control or pregnancy despite her wishes. This amounts to interference with a woman’s autonomy in reproductive decisions. The three main forms of RC are birth control sabotage (including nonconsensual condom removal), pregnancy coercion, and controlling the outcome of a pregnancy. This qualitative exploratory study examines issues in the acknowledgment of RC. Participants were 21 young women in Québec (Canada), who had experienced this form of violence. Results of individual semi-directed interviews reveal that RC can be difficult to acknowledge. A thematic analysis demonstrates that awareness is modulated by the manifestations of RC and by the emotional bond with the perpetrator. Acknowledgment of RC behavior varies according to the form that is experienced: Nonconsensual condom removal is the most readily identified, whereas acknowledgment of pregnancy pressure and pregnancy coercion takes longer, requiring repeated incidents before it is identified as a form of violence. In addition, acknowledgment is facilitated when relationships are casual and uncommitted compared with romantic and committed. Moreover, reading about the issue, confiding in a friend or acquaintance, and finding a new partner who respects one’s reproductive rights facilitate RC acknowledgment. In contrast, not self-identifying as a victim, assuming responsibility for the incident, having a limited understanding of sexual violence, and experiencing other forms of violence with an intimate partner contribute to impede RC acknowledgment. Results are discussed in terms of practical implications for young adults and health care professionals.

Background Non-consensual removal of condoms, colloquially referred to as ‘stealthing’, is the removal of a condom during sex by a sexual partner when consent has been given for sex with a condom only. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey to determine how commonly women and men who have sex with men (MSM) attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre had experienced stealthing, and analysed situational factors associated with the event. Responses were linked to demographic information extracted from patient files. Results 1189 of 2883 women (41.2%), and 1063 of 3439 MSM (30.9%) attending the clinic during the study period completed the survey. Thirty-two percent of women (95% CI: 29%,35%) and 19% of MSM (95% CI: 17%,22%) reported having ever experienced stealthing. Women who had been stealthed were more likely to be a current sex worker (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 2.87, 95% CI: 2.01,4.11, p <0.001). MSM who had experienced stealthing were more likely to report anxiety or depression (AOR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.25,3.60, p = 0.005). Both female and male participants who had experienced stealthing were three times less likely to consider it to be sexual assault than participants who had not experienced it (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.22,0.4 and OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21,0.45 respectively). Conclusions A high proportion of women and MSM attending a sexual health service reported having experienced stealthing. While further investigation is needed into the prevalence of stealthing in the general community, clinicians should be aware of this practice and consider integrating this question into their sexual health consultation. Understanding situational factors would assist in the development of preventive strategies, particularly female sex workers and MSM.

Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) is the removal of a condom before or during sexual intercourse without one’s partner's consent. Despite considerable news and media attention devoted to the trend (as stealthing), little empirical research to date has examined people’s views of the practice. The present study aimed to contribute toward generating empirical evidence to guide the discussion surrounding NCCR. We asked participants about whether or not they felt NCCR is wrong, whether there should be consequences for its perpetration, and contextualized responses within legal context. A total of 592 undergraduate students took part in an online survey inquiring about their experiences with and views of NCCR. We used descriptive statistics to determine sample prevalence and outcomes of NCCR and qualitatively analyzed responses to open-ended questions asking about perceptions of NCCR. Of participants who had engaged in penetrative sexual intercourse with a male partner using an external condom, 18.7%, 95% CI [14.4, 22.7] reported that they had NCCR perpetrated against them. The majority of these participants reported that they experienced NCCR negatively and encountered related consequences; several reported contracting an STI, experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, or both. Nearly all participants expressed that NCCR is wrong, citing reasons that included the lack of consent, possibility of unplanned or unwanted outcomes, and a betrayal of trust. In this study, we found that there was agreement that NCCR is wrong, but variability in responses regarding the circumstances under which there should be consequences for the action. These perceptions reflect the current uncertainty in law. We recommend researchers refer to the phenomenon as NCCR (rather than stealthing) and discuss related issues to encourage future research to adopt consistent and accurate labels and definitions for NCCR. We hope that our findings will guide future research and spur public and legal discussion on NCCR.