Yesterday, Ian Ayres (whom I know slightly) made the suggestion that there be a crime of first sexual encounter without use of a condom. After I have read the paper I will provide a reasoned (but perhaps not thoughtful) response. An initial reaction is that, whatever the details, this is a bad idea. (Alright, this is a second reaction: my first reaction was - this is ridiculously dumb; did Ayres get hit in the head with a large hammer?) We will see how the details play out. Starting off, however, it is pretty clear from past experience (say AIDS/HIV) that the criminal law is a paticularly crappy way to deal with health problems (and health issues have to motivate here or there would be little point to required use of a condom). In adddition the suggested correlation of first time encounters without condoms and coercive sex is (a) speculative and (b) too poor a relation to support use of the criminal law. My final response at this stage (and, again, I have not read the article yet) is that this may well have largely counter-productive effects. It may well trivialize more "serious" sex crimes by encouraging down-charging or subjecting prosecutions to public scorn. But these last two points are pure speculation.
I have read the paper, and have further comments above. And those coming from Instapundit, welcome to this small diversion on the other side of the political line.