Would you call this rape?

gizmo81

Why are you only concerned for the men involved in this situation?

What about your sister or your daughter who has to go to the STI clinic, who has to go for the morning after pill, who has to get the boat, because someone goes against her wishes?

anna080 wrote: »

For all of those saying it is rape- can you honestly say you'd think it was fair for your brother or son to be called a rapist because he removed a condom during what was considered a consensual act? I can think of a lot of names to call him but none of them are rapist.

nhunter100

Brian? wrote:

Why are you giving a man who does this an out? It's a disgusting thing to do. It's a betrayal of trust. It's performing a sex act without consent, therefore it's rape.

It's not rape, don't demean the term by this nonsense.

retro:electro

Brian? wrote: »

"Put that condom on and I'll have sex with you"

That's hardly jargon. It's consenting to have sex with a condom. It's explicitly clear that the consent is predicated on the use of a condom.

Why are you giving a man who does this an out? It's a disgusting thing to do. It's a betrayal of trust. It's performing a sex act without consent, therefore it's rape.

Why do you say I'm giving him an out? I think that's a really unfair thing to say and if you really think that you should re read my op again. I'm simply exploring the intricacies of the situation. I agree it's completely scumbaggy and a total lack of respect and a betrayal of trust. But I'd call it assault before I'd call it rape.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Is it any different I suppose to him telling you he'll pull out and he doesn't? I'd be angry about that but wouldn't consider that rape... i dunno to be honest.

retro:electro

gizmo81 wrote: »

Why are you only concerned for the men involved in this situation?

What about your sister or your daughter who has to go to the STI clinic, who has to go for the morning after pill, who has to get the boat, because someone goes against her wishes?

Ah would you ever stop. Of course I have concerns for them. Totally and utterly. I didn't think I needed to stipulate that. My post was about being called a rapist due to the removal of a condom, so forgive me for focusing on that aspect for five minutes. Christ

Prime Irish Beef

Brian? wrote: »

Condoms come off on their own? All the way off without the man noticing?

I've had them split without noticing but the conform was still on for the most part.

I got a condom lost inside me once, neither of us had noticed that it came off.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

For all of those saying it is rape- can you honestly say you'd think it was fair for your brother or son to be called a rapist because he removed a condom during what was considered a consensual act? I can think of a lot of names to call him but none of them are rapist.

I'd say it would be absolutely fair for them to be called a rapist. I'd want to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law too. While rape by deceit isn't applicable in Irish law, I don't think it could be argued that the defendant was of the reasonable belief that the person would have consented to sex without a condom if one of the conditions of having sex is that they used a condom.

It's been applied in a few cases in the UK -

'Conditional' Consent

Section 74 has recently been considered by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a series of cases where ostensible consent in relation to sexual offences was considered not to be true consent, either because a condition upon which consent was given was not complied with or because of a material deception (other than one which falls within section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 [SOA]). The resultant judgments identified three sets of circumstances in which consent to sexual activity might be vitiated where the condition was breached.

In Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin), an extradition case, the President of the Queens Bench Division considered the situation in which Mr Assange knew that AA would only consent to sexual intercourse if he used a condom. Rejecting the view that the conclusive presumption in section 76 of the SOA would apply in these circumstances the President concluded that the "issue of materiality ...can be determined under section 74 rather than section 76".

On the specific facts the President said:
"It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003...."

In R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), the High Court examined an application for judicial review of the refusal of the DPP to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the complainant by her former partner. "Choice" and the "freedom" to make any particular choice must, the Court said, be approached in "a broad commonsense way".

Against what the Court described as the "essential background" of the complainant's partner's "sexual dominance" and the complainant's "unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands", the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant, the result, the Court stated was:
"She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape".

The third case, Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051, differs from those referred to above. Unlike Assange and F, both of which turned on an express condition, McNally was concerned with the material deception of the victim by the Appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed McNally's appeal against her conviction on six counts of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the SOA and allowed her appeal against sentence. The "undeniably unusual" facts considered by the Court involved the relationship between two girls which, over 3 years, developed from an internet relationship to an "exclusive romantic relationship" that involved their meeting and engaging in sexual activity. From the start McNally presented as a boy, a deception she maintained throughout the relationship. Examining the nature of "choice" and "freedom", the Court determined that "deception as to gender can vitiate consent".

The Courts reasoning was as follows:
"Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."

Demonstrating that the circumstances in which consent may be vitiated are not limitless, the Court explained:
"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."

Brian?

anna080 wrote: »

Why do you say I'm giving him an out? I think that's a really unfair thing to say and if you really think that you should re read my op again. I'm simply exploring the intricacies of the situation. I agree it's completely scumbaggy and a total lack of respect and a betrayal of trust. But I'd call it assault before I'd call it rape.

I'm sorry, but it perfectly fits the definition of rape: performing a sex act without consent.

Removing the condom means the earlier consent is null and void. You're over thinking it completely. The man is given consent to have sex with a condom, once he removes it the consent is gone. It's rape. Just has date rape is rape, because the woman is in no condition to consent. Statutory rape is rape because a minor cannot legally give consent.

It doesn't have to be an act of violence.

I'm saying you're giving the man an out because you are. There are no intricacies. No consent = rape.

Brian?

nhunter100 wrote: »

It's not rape, don't demean the term by this nonsense.

How does it demean the term? It's sex without consent. It's rape

StupidLikeAFox

How in the name of jaysus would you prove this happened?

osarusan

Brian? wrote: »

There are no intricacies. No consent = rape.

I would add to this: no consent + no reasonable belief that consent had been granted = rape.

Reasonable belief that consent had been granted is a defence to rape charges.

gizmo81

But your last thread was focusing on men (brothers and sons) as victims and dismissing rape culture.

This is problematic.

anna080 wrote: »

Ah would you ever stop. Of course I have concerns for them. Totally and utterly. I didn't think I needed to stipulate that. My post was about being called a rapist due to the removal of a condom, so forgive me for focusing on that aspect for five minutes. Christ

retro:electro

gizmo81 wrote: »

But your last thread was focusing on men (brothers and sons) as victims and dismissing rape culture.

This is problematic.

What is so problematic about it?
Just to be clear, I'm not defending or dismissing this act like you seem to think I am. It's disgusting. I'm just not sure it fits the word "rape", id consider it sexual assault

nhunter100

Brian? wrote:

How does it demean the term? It's sex without consent. It's rape

Explain the loss of consent?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

nhunter100 wrote: »

Explain the loss of consent?

Agree to sex if they've a condom.
They remove condom knowing she only agreed because he had one on is losing consent

riffmongous

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Agree to sex if they've a condom.
They remove condom knowing she only agreed because he had one on is losing consent

You shouldn't even have had to explain that

meeeeh

Woman's (or man's in case of gay sex) life could be in danger because of it. It what if someone who is anti abortion gets pregnant? I'm sure removing the condom is not as much of an ordeal as rape in traditional sense. But physical consequences can be just as bad or even worse if victim is not aware what happened.

greencap

Pin pricking the condom, for trapping a man with a pregnancy - is this rape?

gizmo81

I find it problematic because in two of your recent threads you try to erase the idea of patriarchy.

If someone has sex with someone by deception, pretending to be someone else, pretending to be STI free, pretending to wear a condom. it's deception, to deceive someone is to deliberately make someone believe something that is not true for your own personal gain.

We should not be defending this behaviour in any incarnation.

anna080 wrote: »

What is so problematic about it?
Just to be clear, I'm not defending this act like you seem to think I am. It's disgusting. I'm just not sure it fits the word "rape".

Brian?

nhunter100 wrote: »

Explain the loss of consent?

I've done it twice.

The agreement was to have sex with a condom. Knowing removal of the condom by the mane without informing the woman voids the consent. That's a third time. Do I need puppets to explain it to you?

Purple Mountain

nhunter100 wrote: »

osarusan wrote:

If the partner said that they would only have sex on the condition that a condom was worn, then the removal of the condom means it's no longer consensual.

If the condom broke would that be non consensual or just an unforseen consequence?

And surely the injured party would have to prove that A. they consented to protected only sex and/or B. they did not notice that subsequently the other party removed the condom.
Because imo.. Say a couple are having protective sex and mid way one decides to whip it off..theoretically that could be either him or her actually in a hetro situation..then Im assuming the other party has an onus to notice and say stop. Obviously if the other party ignores the request to stop, the act becomes rape but if both carry on then not in a million years is it i crime never mind rape.

retro:electro

gizmo81 wrote: »

I find it problematic because in two of your recent threads you try to erase the idea of patriarchy.

If someone has sex with someone by deception, pretending to be someone else, pretending to be STI free, pretending to wear a condom. it's deception, to deceive someone is to deliberately make someone believe something that is not true for your own personal gain.

We should not be defending this behaviour in any incarnation.

Who is defending the behaviour?? Again- not me! I've called it sexual assault- you think that's me defending it? It's disgusting. I've said over and over my issue is with it being classified as rape. I'm not sure about that one, I see arguments for and against. I won't be told I'm defending this behaviour when I'm clearly not.

And as for your other point..Oh give over. What are you shoehorning patriarchy in for? Is it just because I'm a woman posting about these issues that you see them as problematic? If I was a man would you care? Stop looking for a problem where there isn't one.

Icyseanfitz

what a horrible and scummy thing to do on purpose, utter dickhead. Would i call it "rape", no, and i think that by broadening the definition of rape so much, it is actually diluting the seriousness of the horrid experiences and trauma of the people who have been raped.

If it could be proven it was done on purpose id agree on sexual assault but again how the hell can it be proven?

meeeeh

gizmo81 wrote: »

I find it problematic because in two of your recent threads you try to erase the idea of patriarchy.

What does this even mean? I don't agree with op but rape and other crimes are just as possible in matriarchy.

meeeeh

If I read article correctly it will be classified as sexual assault and word rape was used by people talking about the law. It's not very clear article (so I could be wrong) but I would assume technical expression will be sexual assault and then it depends how it gets described in lay terms.

Edit: a bit more in depth article

http://www.newsweek.com/what-stealthing-lawmakers-california-and-wisconsin-want-answer-be-rape-610986

retro:electro

Brian? wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it perfectly fits the definition of rape: performing a sex act without consent.

Removing the condom means the earlier consent is null and void. You're over thinking it completely. The man is given consent to have sex with a condom, once he removes it the consent is gone. It's rape. Just has date rape is rape, because the woman is in no condition to consent. Statutory rape is rape because a minor cannot legally give consent.

It doesn't have to be an act of violence.

I'm saying you're giving the man an out because you are. There are no intricacies. No consent = rape.

How am I giving him an out when I've stated that it is for sure an act of sexual assault by deception? Please stop with your nonsence. And I'm aware it doesn't have to be an act of violence- nobody mentioned violence.

Pat Mustard

gizmo81 wrote: »

I find it problematic because in two of your recent threads you try to erase the idea of patriarchy.

Ah jaysus. Are we still going on about Da Paytreearcheee?

gizmo81

I wouldn't of brought it up except for the fact the OP doesn't think it exists.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

gizmo81 wrote: »

I find it problematic because in two of your recent threads you try to erase the idea of patriarchy.

Ah jaysus. Are we still going on about Da Paytreearcheee?

luketitz

Yeah

Alizrian Crimson

No not rape in my own opinion. Would be like a woman tricking me into unprotected sex because she lied about being on the pill. Rape is a brutal crime and should not be trivialized in this manner.

However I am skeptical that this 'stealthing' thing.

Arghus

If someone agrees to sex on the condition of protection been used and then if protection is knowingly not used by one partner, in violation of the other persons wishes and initial conditions of agreement to have sex, then I'd say that's a very severe breach of trust and I'd have no problem deeming it sexual assault. Could you call it rape though? - yeah, I think so: it's non-consensual.

please helpThank YOU

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.

Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald will be calling for this new law to past in Ireland having sex without a `condom now be Classed as `Rape.

rwbug

If a woman says she is on the pill, but isn't - can we do her with rape?

please helpThank YOU

pilly wrote: »

I wouldn't call it rape but would call it sexual assault.

Have sex `bare back is now sexual assault?
:eek:

RayM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Have sex `bare back is now sexual assault?
:eek:

If the person you're having sex with does not know that the cock inside them is unsheathed, then yes, that is sexual assault.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

If the person you're having sex with does not know that the cock inside them is unsheathed, then yes, that is sexual assault.

How would they not know?

gitzy16v

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Have sex `bare back is now sexual assault?
:eek:

Are you intentionally obtuse?
You know quite well whats being said and your not smart enough to get anyone to fall for your bullish1t.
A woman agrees to protected sex and the man removes the condom and carries on is rape....the woman did not consent to unprotected sex,she consented to protected sex.

please helpThank YOU

anna080 wrote: »

Okay- grand. And I'm not saying I don't agree with you because I do, but where does it end? A few weeks ago there was a poster here suggesting that sex where the man doesn't make the woman come is abusive. She was laughed out of the place, and rightly so because it's absolutely ridiculous. But going by what you're saying here, it could be deemed abusive? Say a woman says "I'll consent to sex with you, but you must make me climax", and he fails to do so, is this rape?? Do you see what I'm saying?

That is like saying if your eating hamburger you are `Murder.
`

please helpThank YOU

RayM wrote: »

If the person you're having sex with does not know that the cock inside them is unsheathed, then yes, that is sexual assault.

ahahahahahaha :):eek:

RayM

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

How would they not know?

If you surreptitiously remove the condom during sex, the other person will not necessarily notice.

Surreptitious

RayM wrote: »

If you surreptitiously remove the condom during sex, the other person will not necessarily notice.

Hey! I don't agree with it.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

If you surreptitiously remove the condom during sex, the other person will not necessarily notice.

Every girlfriend I've had has told me sex without a condom feels way, way better, so obviously it feels different enough to be noticed. That's why I'm skeptical of this stealthing thing. A bit like the drink spiking hysteria a few years back.

Anyway, no I don't consider it rape. It's not a gentlemanly thing to do for sure, but it's not rape.

RayM

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Every girlfriend I've had has told me sex without a condom feels way, way better, so obviously it feels different enough to be noticed. That's why I'm skeptical of this stealthing thing. A bit like the drink spiking hysteria a few years back.

Anyway, no I don't consider it rape. It's not a gentlemanly thing to do for sure, but it's not rape.

You seriously think that deliberately putting a person you're having sex with at risk of unwanted pregnancy and/or a sexually transmitted disease is merely "ungentlemanly"?

It's scary how many people don't seem to have a clue about consent.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

You seriously think that deliberately putting a person you're having sex with at risk of unwanted pregnancy and/or a sexually transmitted disease is merely "ungentlemanly"?

It's scary how many people don't seem to have a clue about consent.

If I, for some reason, agreed to have sex with another man and he tricked me about the condom. I would not consider it rape.

Also if a woman tricks me into going in raw because she lied about being on the pill, is that rape?

please helpThank YOU

gitzy16v wrote: »

Are you intentionally obtuse?
You know quite well whats being said and your not smart enough to get anyone to fall for your bullish1t.
A woman agrees to protected sex and the man removes the condom and carries on is rape....the woman did not consent to unprotected sex,she consented to protected sex.

Take this up with `Seanad Eireann . Have this new law past by the time all the new laws are past most men in Ireland will be classed as rapist. would that make you happy ? . Are you a` Man- hater?.

Alizrian Crimson

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Take this up with `Seanad Eireann . Have this new law past by the time all the new laws are past most men in Ireland will be classed as rapist. would that make you happy ? . Are you a` Man- hater?.

Pretty soon it will be wise to have a lawyer present while you have sex, just in case.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Every girlfriend I've had has told me sex without a condom feels way, way better, so obviously it feels different enough to be noticed. That's why I'm skeptical of this stealthing thing. A bit like the drink spiking hysteria a few years back.

Anyway, no I don't consider it rape. It's not a gentlemanly thing to do for sure, but it's not rape.

I'd disagree...
It's not a serious rape but it's sex without consent....
Consent is given for protected sex not unprotected sex.
Sex without consent is rape.
The punishment should match the crime but we are heading down a dangerous path when this crime can't be conclusively proven...just like any woman can take consent away after the deeds been done and cry rape.
My point still stands though,if a woman agrees to protected sex not unprotected sex and a Condom is removed,its rape.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

I'd disagree...
It's not a serious rape but it's sex without consent....
Consent is given for protected sex not unprotected sex.
Sex without consent is rape.
The punishment should match the crime but we are heading down a dangerous path when this crime can't be conclusively proven...just like any woman can take consent away after the deeds been done and cry rape.
My point still stands though,if a woman agrees to protected sex not unprotected sex and a Condom is removed,its rape.

"It's not a serious rape"??? See this is what happens when you trivialize rape. "Hey man, it wasn't a serious murder, why am I in prison?" Rape is a brutal crime. Lying about a condom does not fit that.

Anyway, if this is to be considered rape then lying about being on the pill must also be considered rape.

gitzy16v

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Take this up with `Seanad Eireann . Have this new law past by the time all the new laws are past most men in Ireland will be classed as rapist. would that make you happy ? . Are you a` Man- hater?.

Sex without consent is rape...It's quite simple.
I thought you would understand.
Yes I hate men....they're all bastard rapists...I'll hand myself in to the station tomorrow.

RayM

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

If I, for some reason, agreed to have sex with another man and he tricked me about the condom. I would not consider it rape.

Also if a woman tricks me into going in raw because she lied about being on the pill, is that rape?

You'd think he was just a bit "ungentlemanly" then, shagging you without protection, despite the fact that you (presumably with good reason) did not consent to unprotected sex?

The pill only protects against pregnancy. If a woman lies about being on the pill and you then both agree not to use a condom, you are both consenting to unprotected sex.