Would you call this rape?

Beyondgone

greencap wrote: »

What name would you give to such an offence?

"Being sly while under the influence of the Horn." It should carry a 12 year sentence. Possibly.

I've only me to go by, but when I'm in the throws, rationality, thoughts of future kids, STDs, several Gards and a fine pair of ploughing horses hitched to me hole wouldn't have much effect on reaching the finishing line. Rational thought is so far off in the distance, it could be letting off flares and firing tear-gas tbh.

wonderfullife

tomwaterford wrote: »

Why deosnt it sit well with you??

I see nothing wrong there

La.de.da wrote: »

Yeah, if you ask a woman before sex is she on the pill or another birth control and she lies then by all accounts yes, she is guilty of course.

Fine, call all women who lie about their contraception status before intercourse sexual offenders if you wish.

I won't.

wonderfullife

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's good, because nobody suggested anything like you're claiming.

You don't read very good do you?

Many people have suggested if a woman lies about being on contraception before sex that she is a sexual offender for exposing the man to risk he didn't consent to.

So, yeah, people suggested it.

greencap

greencap wrote: »

Stop the waffle and answer the question.

Well, aren't you extraordinarily rude.

I'd expect that people qualified would recognise the deceit and the sexual element, and would word the law accordingly.

I won't write an imaginary law that I'd imaginarily enforce, called something I imagine might reflect the crime....because I have zero legal knowledge.

But make your own up by all means.

tomwaterford

wonderfullife wrote: »

You don't read very good do you?

Many people have suggested if a woman lies about being on contraception before sex that she is a sexual offender for exposing the man to risk he didn't consent to.

So, yeah, people suggested it.

I cannot fathom why your ok with this though??


And why it deosnt sit well with you

One eyed Jack

the_pen_turner wrote: »

of course the short term cosequences are different. the mother gets pregnant and has the risks of that. but after that the consequences are the same, they both end up parents

Not necessarily.

You're still a far cry from the circumstances being the same for a woman as they would be for a man if a couple have sex with a man pretending he is wearing a condom vs a woman pretending she is on the pill. They could both claim they were the victim of rape, but only one could possibly be charged with an allegation of rape.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

of course the short term cosequences are different. the mother gets pregnant and has the risks of that. but after that the consequences are the same, they both end up parents

No, the consequences are different because the male partner has unwittingly taken part in a sex act he didn't consent to.

The might both be parents, but he's a victim of deception and she isn't.

One eyed Jack

wonderfullife wrote: »

You don't read very good do you?

Many people have suggested if a woman lies about being on contraception before sex that she is a sexual offender for exposing the man to risk he didn't consent to.

So, yeah, people suggested it.

I don't tend to take commentators on the internet as seriously as you appear to, particularly when it comes to hypothetical scenarios.

I wouldn't be too worried either about what people would call anything or any kind of whataboutery that has a whiff of misguided "gender equality" off it tbh.

PucaMama

wonderfullife wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Yes because the diseases that are possibly passed without using a condom can be very serious.

Any unconsensual sex act is rape.

A condom isn't some magic force-field.

Even if you put the thing on 100% correctly and have no intention of doing so, you can still get a woman a) pregnant and/or b) pass on an STI.

The reality is if you consent to sex with a condom you are consenting to placing yourself under some risk.

The argument then becomes a matter of what % risk you consent to - which is a stupid argument philosophically and morally.

To say well I only consented to a 3% risk of getting pregnant and a 10% chance of catching an STI, not to a 20% risk and 30% chance is completely bankrupt.

Don't have sex with someone you don't trust. If you do have sex with them, then have the self-awareness to use your eyes and see if he's wearing a condom or not. If he isn't, ask him to put one one or don't continue having sex.

I'm talking about he case where he takes it off secretly in the middle of it. How is a woman going to see into the future so she can say no to all sex with him?

And also you can say you consent to sex with protection without having a ridiculous conversation about percentages. People know that condoms are not 100 percent and to suggest I said otherwise is just playing dumb.

greencap

Candie wrote: »

Well, aren't you extraordinarily rude.

I'd expect that people qualified would recognise the deceit and the sexual element, and would word the law accordingly.

I won't write an imaginary law that I'd imaginarily enforce, called something I imagine might reflect the crime....because I have zero legal knowledge.

But make your own up by all means.

I'll just pass, since I don't live in the state of California. The only place its really relevant.

tomwaterford

Candie wrote: »

No, the consequences are different because the male partner has unwittingly taken part in a sex act he didn't consent to.

The might both be parents, but he's a victim of deception and she isn't.

This is something i do be conflicted on.....how can you condmn someone who deosnt want anything to do with the child in this circumstance

But then the child is complety innocent too

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is something i do be conflicted on.....how can you condmn someone who deosnt want anything to do with the child in this circumstance

But then the child is complety innocent too

Yeah, it's a mess for everyone concerned.

tomwaterford

greencap wrote: »

I'll just pass, since I don't live in the state of California. The only place its really relevant.

In realition to stealthing??

Someone has already been convicted in ireland

greencap

tomwaterford wrote: »

In realition to stealthing??

Someone has already been convicted in ireland

Really. Whats the details?

tomwaterford

greencap wrote: »

Really. Whats the details?

I linked something very first page....post 7 afaik


A rather famous case invovling a waterford businessman and a prostitude...wasnt called stealthing....but fits the definition

greencap

tomwaterford wrote: »

I linked something very first page....post 7 afaik


A rather famous case invovling a waterford businessman and a prostitude...wasnt called stealthing....but fits the definition

''...claimed he told her he was a garda and also threatened to throw her out of the hotel window''.

''...he became agitated and aggressive and started to choke her, demanding she take off the condom she put on him. He also tried to kiss her despite her saying "please no".''

Seems a bit different to (the normal??) stealthing.

the_pen_turner

Candie wrote: »

No, the consequences are different because the male partner has unwittingly taken part in a sex act he didn't consent to.

The might both be parents, but he's a victim of deception and she isn't.

I think we are in agreement in the contraceptive pill situation the man has agreed to consensual sex on the ground that the woman is on the pill. the woman isn't on the pill so the sex isn't consensual. ergo sexual assault or rape

in the condom situation the woman agree to consensual sex provided a condom is used, the man removes the condom so sex isn't consensual .


both sitautions are the same .

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

I linked something very first page....post 7 afaik


A rather famous case invovling a waterford businessman and a prostitude...wasnt called stealthing....but fits the definition

It was only one of a few elements of assault there, I think. I'm not sure he would have been convicted of it alone, but maybe I'm wrong.

tomwaterford

greencap wrote: »

''...claimed he told her he was a garda and also threatened to throw her out of the hotel window''.

''...he became agitated and aggressive and started to choke her, demanding she take off the condom she put on him. He also tried to kiss her despite her saying "please no".''

Seems a bit different to (the normal??) stealthing.

Deos it or deos it not fit the term??


He was convicted of rape....she agreed to it with a condom,took off condom....consent gone (all presumably wpuldve been ok with condom?)


Seems like the sceanrio fits stealthing to








**not a relative of mine**

greencap

tomwaterford wrote: »

Deos it or deos it not fit the term??


He was convicted of rape....she agreed tp it with a condom,took off condom....consent gone


Seems like the sceanrio fits stealthing to






**not a relative of mine**

No. Thread alludes to secretly whipping off the condom with no objection.

The linked case has a woman outright objecting to sex after knowledge of removal, with objection.

Quite different.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I think we are in agreement in the contraceptive pill situation the man has agreed to consensual sex on the ground that the woman is on the pill. the woman isn't on the pill so the sex isn't consensual. ergo sexual assault or rape

in the condom situation the woman agree to consensual sex provided a condom is used, the man removes the condom so sex isn't consensual .


both sitautions are the same .

The risks are greater with the condom scenario.

If a man agrees to sex on the pill, he's consented to sex that leaves him open to the risk of STI's even if he thinks pregnancy is covered, but he has consented.

If a woman (or man for that matter) consents to sex with a condom, they assume their risk of STI's is greatly lowered. They have not consented to a non barrier form of contraception.

So I think since the risks of non-barrier contraception sex haven't been consented to, it's a very similar but more serious offence.

One is consenting to the risk of STI but not pregnancy, the other is neither consenting to the risk of STI or pregnancy.

Nothing is foolproof of course, but there's no denying that condoms greatly reduce your risk of contracting HIV or any number of sti's.

the_pen_turner

Candie wrote: »

The risks are greater with the condom scenario.

If a man agrees to sex on the pill, he's consented to sex that leaves him open to the risk of STI's even if he thinks pregnancy is covered, but he has consented.

If a woman (or man for that matter) consents to sex with a condom, they assume their risk of STI's is greatly lowered. They have not consented to a non barrier form of contraception.

So I think since the risks of non-barrier contraception sex haven't been consented to, it's a very similar but more serious offence.

One is consenting to the risk of STI but not pregnancy, the other is neither consenting to the risk of STI or pregnancy.

Nothing is foolproof of course, but there's no denying that condoms greatly reduce your risk of contracting HIV or any number of sti's.

I agree the risks are higher in the condom situation but with the pill both parties are consenting to the in protected sex and the risks with that.

I think they are both as serious as each other. they are both sex without consent.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I agree the risks are higher in the condom situation but with the pill both parties are consenting to the in protected sex and the risks with that.

I think they are both as serious as each other. they are both sex without consent.

Both serious yes, but one has possibly life-threatening consequences and the other doesn't. Life altering consequences, yes, but not life threatening. Again, it's all about what you consent to, isn't it? Like most of life.

While I think they should both carry the same charges, one should have longer sentences than the other to reflect that.

wonderfullife

tomwaterford wrote: »

I cannot fathom why your ok with this though??

And why it deosnt sit well with you

When exactly do you think a man would find out that a female sexual partner lied about her contraceptive status?

It won't be when nothing happens....It'll be when she gets pregnant.

I'm not going to sit here and advocate hauling pregnant women in front of the courts on rape/sexual assault charges for lying about their contraceptive status.

Anyway, multiple courts have dismissed an attempt from a man to sue a woman (in civil court) for lying about her contraceptive status. It should be the same the opposite way around.

Can we ever move beyond the whole idea that a woman engaging in birth control sabotage is the same as a man removing a condom? It's not. A woman cannot be prosecuted for raping a man. Until she can, the whole theory is hypothesis built on hypothesis, it's useless. As for sexual assault, I've never seen one prosecuted or even considered in that light, if anything it would seem to me to be a fraud/obtaining money by deception type offence, if followed by a demand for maintenance.

Sin City

n the utility room, Life.ru reports.

The incident occurred on Saturday, March 14. The working day was coming to an end at a small hairdressers, when a man armed with a gun rushed in and demanded the day’s earnings.


The frightened employees and customers agreed to fulfill his demand, but when the shop’s owner, 28-year-old Olga, was handing the money to the robber, she suddenly knocked him down on the floor and then tied him up with a hairdryer cord.

The 32-year-old Viktor couldn’t have known that the woman was a yellow belt in karate. Olga locked the unlucky robber in the utility room and told her colleagues that she was going to call the police – but didn’t do so. When everybody left home, she approached the man and ordered him to ‘take of his underpants’ threatening to hand him over to the police if he refuses to cooperate. 
Olga


After that Olga raped her hostage for three long days. She chained Viktor to the radiator with pink furry handcuffs and fed him Viagra. She eventually let the man go on Monday, March 16, saying:“Get out of my sight!” Viktor went straight to hospital as his genitals were injured, and then to the police.

Olga was resentful when she was taken by the police. “What a bastard,” the woman said about Viktor. “Yes, we had sex a couple of times. But I’ve bought him new jeans, gave him food and even gave him 1.000 roubles (around $ 30) when he left.” 

After that she wrote a notice to the police claiming the man tried to rob her shop. Both Olga and Viktor may now face prison terms. The woman could be convicted of rape, while the man of robbery.

Is this rape or sexual assault?

Samaris

Sin City wrote: »

Is this rape or sexual assault?

To -my mind-, it is rape.

But the two terms are legal terms, not mutable moral terms, so it depends what country they were in and how it is reflected in their laws. Going by the names and the mention of roubles, I'll go for Russia (there's one or two others, but Russia seems most likely).

Russian law states that rape is non-consensual vaginal intercourse (Article 131), so, same as Ireland, it's got a slightly different term on it due to the genders involved (rightly or wrongly and for the record, I do think wrongly), which is "coercive sexual actions" in the following article (Article 132), and does include female-male incidents.

Given the circumstances, it would be on the higher end of the scale due to aggravating factors (imprisonment, repeated actions (yes, I'm having trouble avoiding the legal term rape for the sake of sentence construction!), probably putting the guy in fear of his life. There may be something knocked off for the man having attacked her and her co-workers first by way of armed robbery but eeh.

Short answer - I would call it rape, the law would call it neither term, but rather "coercive sexual action", which carries the same sentencing.

Sin City

If this happened in this country would the media be citing rape or sexual coersion?
I get it legally speaking only the male can comit rape. As in the term not the action

Surely in this century with men and women being equal the law should be changed that women can comit an act of rape on men

Assetbacked

I think there is too much analysis by those with too little experience in both law and sex.

the_pen_turner

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we ever move beyond the whole idea that a woman engaging in birth control sabotage is the same as a man removing a condom? It's not. A woman cannot be prosecuted for raping a man. Until she can, the whole theory is hypothesis built on hypothesis, it's useless. As for sexual assault, I've never seen one prosecuted or even considered in that light, if anything it would seem to me to be a fraud/obtaining money by deception type offence, if followed by a demand for maintenance.

they are both the same or at least almost the same. the legalities are irrelevant because the law is wrong. this isn't a legal debate it is an ethical on. this thread is about opinions not laws.


if you believe that the condom situation is rape then you have to believe that the pill situation is the same. same goes for the sunglasses situation. legally the consent is the same. consequences are not though

I can see the condom situation as sexual assault but not the pill . that would be fraud or entrapment or deception etc

the_pen_turner

Assetbacked wrote: »

I think there is too much analysis by those with too little experience in both law and sex.

the law is irrelevant and frankly so one sided it is frightening

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

the_pen_turner wrote: »

they are both the same or at least almost the same. the legalities are irrelevant because the law is wrong. this isn't a legal debate it is an ethical on. this thread is about opinions not laws.


if you believe that the condom situation is rape then you have to believe that the pill situation is the same. same goes for the sunglasses situation. legally the consent is the same. consequences are not though

I can see the condom situation as sexual assault but not the pill . that would be fraud or entrapment or deception etc

They're not. I agree men can be raped (though it's not recognised in the eyes of the law) and I agree women sabotaging their pill and tricking their partner into becoming a dad is abhorrent and is a completely dispicable thing to do however she's not forcing him to use his body against his will.

If a woman doesn't want to have someone's bodily fluids inside her body, she doesn't trust he's not running around and isn't willing to risk infection or isn't prepared to put her body through the trauma of pregnancy and a man ignores what she's consented to and uses her body in a way she doesn't consent to, its rape (in my opinion, no consent given). You can't compare that to a man willingly putting his penis into someone, or willingly sharing his DNA material.

That said no contraceptives are 100% reliable. I know someone who ended up pregnant although a condom was used. But deliberately forcing someone into having a baby (male or female) is an awful thing to do.

retro:electro

But you could easily turn that around and say his body is being used against his will and against what he consented to- if he engaged in sex with the knowledge that she was on the pill. If she said to him she's on the pill in order to get him to sleep with her and he would not have done otherwise, that is done against his will and is a betrayal of his consent. She using his body in a way he hasn't consented to.

greencap

Women will eventually dilute that word to their own detriment.


Rapist will change from 'holy fck' to 'oh, what you mean the real kind or the technical offense'

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

But you could easily turn that around and say his body is being used against his will and against what he consented to- if he engaged in sex with the knowledge that she was on the pill. If she said to him she's on the pill in order to get him to sleep with her and he would not have done otherwise, that is done against his will and is a betrayal of his consent. She using his body in a way he hasn't consented to.

You'd have a hard time trying to convince a jury that a man's body was used against his will if he ejaculated of his own volition, let alone convince them that a woman should be found guilty of sexual assault under those circumstances. Of course that would require a complaint from a man that he had been sexually assaulted in the first place. I couldn't see that happening either tbh.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You'd have a hard time trying to convince a jury that a man's body was used against his will if he ejaculated of his own volition, let alone convince them that a woman should be found guilty of sexual assault under those circumstances. Of course that would require a complaint from a man that he had been sexually assaulted in the first place. I couldn't see that happening either tbh.

But his ejaculation was a result of him being led to believe she was on the pill. If she hadn't lied, he wouldn't have ejaculated, as there wouldn't have been any sexual encounter. Thus she was using his body in a way which breached his initial consent. He was duped.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

But his ejaculation was a result of him being led to believe she was on the pill. If she hadn't lied, he wouldn't have ejaculated, as there wouldn't have been any sexual encounter. Thus she was using his body in a way which breached his initial consent. He was duped.

It's an interesting theoretical argument, I don't think it would get very far if a complaint were made against a woman though for lying about being on the pill.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

anna080 wrote: »

But you could easily turn that around and say his body is being used against his will and against what he consented to- if he engaged in sex with the knowledge that she was on the pill. If she said to him she's on the pill in order to get him to sleep with her and he would not have done otherwise, that is done against his will and is a betrayal of his consent. She using his body in a way he hasn't consented to.

True. But he's not being put in any physical harm outside what he consented to. I don't know to be honest, I don't think it's a cut and dry case. For example, if I'm having sex and he says he'll pull out and that's what I assume he'll do, and he doesn't, I'd be pretty annoyed with him and think he was a dopey eejit but wouldn't class that as rape. If I have sex with someone who tells me he's a pilot and a billionaire and I have sex with him to later find out hes on the dole I'd be livid but wouldn't identify that as rape.
That said, him whipping off a condom and having sex with me without it, it would ne a deciding factor in me giving consent and to have him do that to me would in my eyes revoke consent immediately as in if I knew the condom was off I'd be stopping procedures immediately and for him to know that and carry on, it's in my eyes essentially rape

Outlaw Pete

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If I have sex with someone who tells me he's a pilot and a billionaire and I have sex with him to later find out hes on the dole I'd be livid but wouldn't identify that as rape.

There was a campaign a few years back to make that very thing qualify as rape. One feminist author set up the following website in support of it:

https://rapebyfraud.com/

it was even proposed as a law in New Jersey:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11261464/Lied-your-way-into-sex-You-could-be-a-rapist.html

retro:electro

LexieOnRale wrote: »

True. But he's not being put in any physical harm outside what he consented to. I don't know to be honest, I don't think it's a cut and dry case. For example, if I'm having sex and he says he'll pull out and that's what I assume he'll do, and he doesn't, I'd be pretty annoyed with him and think he was a dopey eejit but wouldn't class that as rape. If I have sex with someone who tells me he's a pilot and a billionaire and I have sex with him to later find out hes on the dole I'd be livid but wouldn't identify that as rape.
That said, him whipping off a condom and having sex with me without it, it would ne a deciding factor in me giving consent and to have him do that to me would in my eyes revoke consent immediately as in if I knew the condom was off I'd be stopping procedures immediately and for him to know that and carry on, it's in my eyes essentially rape

I would call it sexual assault by deception, and I'd call it the same thing if a woman did it by lying about the pill. The intent is the same in both instances: it's using the other's body by means of betrayal and a breach of their original consent, for your own sexual gratification.

WomanSkirtFan8

anna080 wrote: »

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Wisconsin-and-California-Lawmakers-Take-Aim-at-Stealthing-422878864.html

The state of California aims to make "stealthing", the removal of a condom, unknown to your partner, an act of rape.

TBH I can see both sides to this. You've consented to protected sex, and so the removal of the condom unbeknownst to you violates that, so some breach has occurred.

But on the flip side- when you're consenting to sex- who actually stipulates the conditions of x,y and z and what can and cannot happen during that act? I also know of women who have lied to men about being on the pill before having sex, does this mean they have raped them?

I think it's deceptive sexual assault. Exposing a woman to potential std's and of course the risk of pregnancy without her knowledge is of course a totally abhorrent, scumbaggy, debasing and all around irresponsible thing to do- but rape?

If my boyfriend removes the condom mid act, does that mean he has raped me? Or is it only when there is a risk of an STD involved?
I just think that the definition of the word rape and all it encapsulates is broadening so vastly that some day we'll all be afraid to even touch each other without the solicitor in the room with contracts drawn up.

No I wouldnt call it rape. For that to be the case, it would have to be considered non-consensual (I.e. against a persons free will e.g. trying to force someone to have sex against their wi that's rape.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

I would call it sexual assault by deception, and I'd call it the same thing if a woman did it by lying about the pill. The intent is the same in both instances: it's using their body by means of betrayal and a breach of their original consent, for your own sexual gratification.

The tricky thing about it though is that in Irish law at least, even if it is demonstrated that consent was absent, that doesn't automatically imply that a person or persons would be immediately found guilty of having committed rape.

the_pen_turner

LexieOnRale wrote: »

True. But he's not being put in any physical harm outside what he consented to. I don't know to be honest, I don't think it's a cut and dry case. For example, if I'm having sex and he says he'll pull out and that's what I assume he'll do, and he doesn't, I'd be pretty annoyed with him and think he was a dopey eejit but wouldn't class that as rape. If I have sex with someone who tells me he's a pilot and a billionaire and I have sex with him to later find out hes on the dole I'd be livid but wouldn't identify that as rape.
That said, him whipping off a condom and having sex with me without it, it would ne a deciding factor in me giving consent and to have him do that to me would in my eyes revoke consent immediately as in if I knew the condom was off I'd be stopping procedures immediately and for him to know that and carry on, it's in my eyes essentially rape

what I take from that is that the line after which you consider it rape is that if you found out half way through you would stop and say this isn't what I want.

surely the same applies to the pill. if I was in the middle and she said that she lied about being on the pill I would stop because I wouldn't have consented to sex without the pill

Vela

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

It's certainly not right, but it's not rape either.

Also ... How would the other party involved not notice this happening?

It can definitely happen without either party noticing. Been there, not fun times.

Vela

LexieOnRale wrote: »

They're not. I agree men can be raped (though it's not recognised in the eyes of the law) and I agree women sabotaging their pill and tricking their partner into becoming a dad is abhorrent and is a completely dispicable thing to do however she's not forcing him to use his body against his will.

If a woman doesn't want to have someone's bodily fluids inside her body, she doesn't trust he's not running around and isn't willing to risk infection or isn't prepared to put her body through the trauma of pregnancy and a man ignores what she's consented to and uses her body in a way she doesn't consent to, its rape (in my opinion, no consent given). You can't compare that to a man willingly putting his penis into someone, or willingly sharing his DNA material.

That said no contraceptives are 100% reliable. I know someone who ended up pregnant although a condom was used. But deliberately forcing someone into having a baby (male or female) is an awful thing to do.

I agree with this. I agree it's a seriously deceptive violation. But I also think it needs a legal term and definition that isn't 'rape'. That word is being used too often to describe too many situations now, and its just making it more of a difficult grey area than it should be.

wonderfullife

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If a woman doesn't want to have someone's bodily fluids inside her body, she doesn't trust he's not running around and isn't willing to risk infection or isn't prepared to put her body through the trauma of pregnancy and a man ignores what she's consented to and uses her body in a way she doesn't consent to, its rape (in my opinion, no consent given). You can't compare that to a man willingly putting his penis into someone, or willingly sharing his DNA material.

Even if the man wears a condom, the woman is willing to risk infection. The risks might be smaller but the risks don't vanish. Even with correctly applied condoms you can still pass on STI's. Condoms do break, split, rip, slip.

You're consenting to risk of pregnancy and STI's even with a condom.

You're just consenting to a lower % of risk than without a condom.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

T If I have sex with someone who tells me he's a pilot and a billionaire and I have sex with him to later find out hes on the dole I'd be livid but wouldn't identify that as rape.

Who cares what he works at or how much he's worth?

Or is your point you don't like being lied to? (Fair)

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

wonderfullife wrote: »

Even if the man wears a condom, the woman is willing to risk infection. The risks might be smaller but the risks don't vanish. Even with correctly applied condoms you can still pass on STI's. Condoms do break, split, rip, slip.

You're consenting to risk of pregnancy and STI's even with a condom.

You're just consenting to a lower % of risk than without a condom.



Who cares what he works at or how much he's worth?

Or is your point you don't like being lied to? (Fair)

It's about consent I guess. Would I consent to having sex with someone who was long term unemployed? No. If he lied and told me he was I dunno, a barrister, if it was a factor in me agreeing to sleep with him I'd feel very angry but not raped

Widdershins

No. Maybe a sexual offense, but not rape..

wonderfullife

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's about consent I guess. Would I consent to having sex with someone who was long term unemployed? No. If he lied and told me he was I dunno, a barrister, if it was a factor in me agreeing to sleep with him I'd feel very angry but not raped

Well congrats for the most materialistic shallow post ever written on the forum.

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys what someone works at or if they are rich or poor and it would be a zero % factor in whether I sleep with them or not.

Maybe they can come back and sleep with you when they win the lotto.

greencap

wonderfullife wrote: »

Well congrats for the most materialistic shallow post ever written on the forum.

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys what someone works at or if they are rich or poor and it would be a zero % factor in whether I sleep with them or not.

Maybe they can come back and sleep with you when they win the lotto.

Lolol. Unbelievable.

Before we hit the hay, whats your average annual income.

Western women are in for a shock come the next transport advance.