The intimate act engaged in is consensual. No one is forced or deprived of the power to resist. Both parties willingly agree. But what is punished is the deception in the form of the removal of the protection.

A and B met in a bar. After a few more dates, their friendship transcended to the romantic level. Time came when they became intimate. But just before engaging in the sexual act itself, B asked A to wear a contraceptive (i.e., condom) so she would be protected. A obliged. But in the middle of the act itself, A, without B’s knowledge, much less consent, removed the condom then consummated the act. Was there any crime committed? Seems none thus far.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about rape and its present definition. To refresh your memory, rape is no longer confined to our usual notion of forcible sexual intercourse with a woman. It now encompasses insertion of an object into the private parts of either a male or female. This definition has indeed greatly broadened the scope of rape. So many other acts, which may have once just been classified as mere acts of lasciviousness, have been included in the present-day ambit of rape. This translates to a much heavier penalty since acts of lasciviousness only carries a lighter one.

With that, the perpetrator regrets more than a thousandfold what he has done.

The present-day coverage of rape has broadened. And in the near future, rape might include another sinister act. Recently, our lawmakers have pushed for the expansion of rape to cover stealthing, as embodied in House Bill 3957. Stealthing is the act of removing the contraceptive (i.e., condom) during a consensual sexual act. Under this bill, the act of doing so will be considered sexual assault qualifying it to rape. Again, let me emphasize. The intimate act engaged in is consensual. No one is forced or deprived of the power to resist. Both parties willingly agree. But what is punished is the deception in the form of the removal of the protection. The proposed bill also covers other acts such as tampering with or intentionally damaging the prophylactic. It also recommends inclusion of the act of telling the partner use of such contraceptive, solely to gain her consent (when actually none is used during the act itself). Thus, in these instances, the consenting partner is under the belief that she is protected, only for her to find out later on that she was not after all. There lies the deceit that in turn is being penalized. And rightfully so. What if the person using the prophylactic is infected with a sexually transmissible disease? We all obviously know that his partner may have contracted it 99 percent if there is no condom used. Just imagine if the partner indeed contracted the disease. Her sole experience that night will forever change her. And if it is an incurable one, how that has made her days on earth numbered. Or what if the partner did not want to get pregnant? We very well know that the removal of the contraceptive greatly increases the chance of conception. And if she indeed conceived, that too is a life-changing experience. If she is only in her teens, think of the responsibility she has to bear. She will have to mature fast, not only for herself, but for the child in her womb.

I have not yet read the bill. I am curious how the acts are defined and the penalties they carry. I imagine the penalties may be quite heavy too. Indeed, I am one with the lawmakers in making this deceitful behavior worthy of incarceration. And if this bill is indeed signed into law, it will once again modify the meaning of rape. Now it can already cover an act that started out as consensual. Let us see if this gets inked. Keep you posted.