The Prince: “’Now, I try to use condoms,’ [Veronica] said. Most of her sexual partners, she explained, do not mind that form of contraception, except for ‘one partner, who is the ‘Mr. Magic No Condom’ man.’”

You said that “By refusing to use birth control, ‘Veronica’s’ partner is putting her at risk for pregnancy and STIs. Is this sexual assault? Regardless of whether ‘Veronica’ defines it as such, I think it would be hard to argue that it’s not.”

I disagree. Assuming that Veronica consents to having sex with Mr. MNCM and that she is able to consent (and the article does not suggest otherwise), this is a case of irresponsible, but willing sex. It is incredibly risky behavior for both of them, and reprehensible of Mr. MNCM to make this demand, but it is not assault unless Veronica is somehow unable to say ‘no’ to sex at all.

By refusing to wear a condom, Mr. MNCM is putting Veronica at risk for pregnancy and STIs. By agreeing to his refusal, Veronica is putting Mr. MNCM at risk for STIs. A horrible situation from a health standpoint, as well as from the viewpoint that sexual relationships should be honest, communicative, respectful and safe. But sexual assault it is not.

If only this were true, Amelia. I’m afraid you only wrote one paragraph on the matter, skirting around the issue of whether ec.princeton.edu is objective and assuming that if you just say EC isn’t abortion, it never is. Once again, you have successfully proved that liberalism = ignorance.

Best regards,
Aaron Smargon