Would you call this rape?

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

"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.

I knew that word would be singled out...
Like a previous poster said it's not like someone violently raping somebody....It's deception,the woman agrees to protected sex not unprotected sex.
She gave consent to protected sex not unprotected sex.
Do you understand consent?

And fcuk you insinuating that I'm trivializing rape,I guarantee you wouldn't say that to my face you cheeky fcuk.

please helpThank YOU

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

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

I know a women who is a very respectable, well educated, in her 60s. She said to me all men are `Rapist`if the do not marry a women. and are single next I said to her does that mean your husband and 3 sons are rapist. No there married to a women and can get `sex . I was `shocked at her mind set .

Arghus

Enough of this thread for me now.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

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.

I might be annoyed at the man but no I would not consider it rape since I consented to sex in the first place. I'd probably be more disturbed how my life had reached the point where I'm having sex with other men...

So I consent to have unprotected sex and since the woman told me she's on the pill I cum inside safe in the knowledge that's she's on the pill.

Nine months later I'm a daddy and paying child support. I was tricked into giving my consent for going in raw. How come that's not rape?

Good thing then both stealthing and lying about the pill are rare to non existent.

please helpThank YOU

gitzy16v wrote: »

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.

You hate men that is good to know.:eek:

CPTM

Alizrian Crimson wrote:

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

Interesting point...

gitzy16v

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

You hate men that is good to know.:eek:

And you've got no idea...good to know...
Go back under your bridge..

please helpThank YOU

gitzy16v wrote: »

I knew that word would be singled out...
Like a previous poster said it's not like someone violently raping somebody....It's deception,the woman agrees to protected sex not unprotected sex.
She gave consent to protected sex not unprotected sex.
Do you understand consent?

And fcuk you insinuating that I'm trivializing rape,I guarantee you wouldn't say that to my face you cheeky fcuk.

What. have you been drinking ?

Alizrian Crimson

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

I know a women who is a very respectable, well educated, in her 60s. She said to me all men are `Rapist`if the do not marry a women. and are single next I said to her does that mean your husband and 3 sons are rapist. No there married to a women and can get `sex . I was `shocked at her mind set .

Well we'll soon be at the stage where you'll be guilty until proven innocent when it comes to rape so nothing shocks me anymore.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

I knew that word would be singled out...
Like a previous poster said it's not like someone violently raping somebody....It's deception,the woman agrees to protected sex not unprotected sex.
She gave consent to protected sex not unprotected sex.
Do you understand consent?

And fcuk you insinuating that I'm trivializing rape,I guarantee you wouldn't say that to my face you cheeky fcuk.

I absolutely would say it to your face if you came out with 'it's not a serious rape' I mean wtf? Where does that even come from?

gitzy16v

CPTM wrote: »

Interesting point...

It is....It's deception...sexual deception...not quite as bad as all out rape but enough to be classified in the lower end of sex without consent.
I wouldn't consent to having unprotected sex with a girl if she wasn't on the pill.
If she said she was she has fooled me into doing something I didn't consent to.
Obviously I've to take my own precautions but it's not what I gave consent to.
I'm finding it astonishing that people here don't understand the concept of consent!!!!!

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

I absolutely would say it to your face if you came out with 'it's not a serious rape' I mean wtf? Where does that even come from?

Sex without consent is rape.
Are you following me?
Violent sexual assault is a serious rape.
Still following?
Someone taking off a condom halfway through consensual sex and carries on with sex that wasn't consented to is not as serious.
I can't believe this needs to be explained.
And if you'd like to tell me to my face that I'm trivializing rape I'll send my address.

gitzy16v

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What. have you been drinking ?

I'm done with you.
Your a joke.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

Sex without consent is rape.
Are you following me?
Violent sexual assault is a serious rape.
Still following?
Someone taking off a condom halfway through consensual sex and carries on with sex that wasn't consented to is not as serious.
I can't believe this needs to be explained.
And if you'd like to tell me to my face that I'm trivializing rape I'll send my address.

Ok tough guy, send away. Meanwhile I'll be trivialisng murder by saying it wasn't a serious murder.

please helpThank YOU

gitzy16v wrote: »

It is....It's deception...sexual deception...not quite as bad as all out rape but enough to be classified in the lower end of sex without consent.
I wouldn't consent to having unprotected sex with a girl if she wasn't on the pill.
If she said she was she has fooled me into doing something I didn't consent to.
Obviously I've to take my own precautions but it's not what I gave consent to.
I'm finding it astonishing that people here don't understand the concept of consent!!!!!

`Consent in writing ? our . `Verbally Consent is not worth the paper it is `Written on.

RayM

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

I might be annoyed at the man but no I would not consider it rape since I consented to sex in the first place.

You consented to sex with that man on the condition that he put a condom on before entering you. You did not consent to having unprotected sex with him. You must be very... tolerant to merely be "annoyed" at someone who, for all you know, could have infected you with HIV.

I don't know you - maybe you're already riddled with STDs, so the prospect of contracting one doesn't really bother you. Can you understand that other people might not share your lax attitude towards sexual health and consent?

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

So I consent to have unprotected sex and since the woman told me she's on the pill I cum inside safe in the knowledge that's she's on the pill.

Nine months later I'm a daddy and paying child support. I was tricked into giving my consent for going in raw. How come that's not rape?

Good thing then both stealthing and lying about the pill are rare to non existent.

For a start, she's taking a big risk having sex with a man who allows other men to ride him without protection. But leaving that aside, you were deceived into giving your consent, despite not having any evidence that she took the pill. She conned you, but she didn't do anything to physically put your body at risk.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Ok tough guy, send away. Meanwhile I'll be trivialisng murder by saying it wasn't a serious murder.

Try answer my points I posted...
And stop with your deflection...this thread has nothing to do with murder.
And hahaha I'm far from a tough guy but I'm not afraid to step away from the cover of the internet to stand up to little pricks who tell me I'm trivializing something as serious as rape.
I'll pm you my address if you'll come and say what you said in this thread to my face....I guarantee you won't because you'd never get away with that attitude in real life.

gitzy16v

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

`Consent in writing ? our . `Verbally Consent is not worth the paper it is `Written on.

I'm done with you....your a joke.
Getn deja vu here.

hatrickpatrick

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Ok tough guy, send away. Meanwhile I'll be trivialisng murder by saying it wasn't a serious murder.

To be fair, the same logic applies to murder already and the amount of brutality involved - eg, somebody being shot and dying instantly is murder, somebody being slowly beaten to death over several hours with an iron bar is a brutal or savage murder. The latter type of case tends to warrant a far harsher hearing before the justice system should the perpetrator be convicted.

please helpThank YOU

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

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

You are 100 per cent right. Its all about `Consent and you would need your lawyer to be there to make a `legal document as proof of legal consent.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

You consented to sex with that man on the condition that he put a condom on before entering you. You did not consent to having unprotected sex with him. You must be very... tolerant to merely be "annoyed" at someone who, for all you know, could have infected you with HIV.

I don't know you - maybe you're already riddled with STDs, so the prospect of contracting one doesn't really bother you. Can you understand that other people might not share your lax attitude towards sexual health and consent?

For a start, she's taking a big risk having sex with a man who allows other men to ride him without protection. But leaving that aside, you were deceived into giving your consent, despite not having any evidence that she took the pill. She conned you, but she didn't do anything to physically put your body at risk.

I still wouldn't consider it rape. Same as a man with a woman. Not nice and not to be encouraged. But calling it rape trivializes real rape. And isn't exposing someone to HIV already illegal? Why does it have to be rape?

Good thing I'm not bisexual so. She tricked me into giving my consent. Why is that ok? Why is ok just because I'm man and her a woman? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

. She tricked me into giving my consent. Why is that ok?.

It's not ok

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

It's not ok

But it's not rape either.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

But it's not rape either.

It is...it sex without consent.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

It is...it sex without consent.

Not in my opinion. But I throw it out to Ray as a thought experiment.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Not in my opinion. But I through it out to Ray as thought experiment.

Guess you think it's ok to pull a condom off and have sex with a woman who doesn't consent to unprotected sex then.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

Guess you think it's ok to pull a condom off and have sex with a woman who doesn't consent to unprotected sex then.

I wouldn't do it but I don't consider that rape either.

Rape is a brutal crime. To tell someone who's gone through the trauma of rape that someone who was 'stealthed' was also raped is not ok in my opinion.

please helpThank YOU

The Law in Ireland is believe the `alleged victim. So there is no evidence `of Consent just one persons word `hearsay evidence. I told him you can have sex with me but do not take off the `condom our if you do that is `rape . You then go to Gardai and say he took the condom off while we where having sex I did not `consent to this I want him Changed and Jailed and his name put on a `sex offenders list as a rapist.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

I wouldn't do it but I don't consider that rape either.

Rape is a brutal crime. To tell someone who's gone through the trauma of rape that someone who was 'stealthed' was also raped is not ok in my opinion.

I've no idea what "stealthed" is???
But having sex with Someone who has not consented to it is rape.
It's fcuking simple...Consent to protected sex and receive unprotected sex is rape.
Not on the scale of brutality of violent sexual rape but rape all the same and the punishment should fit the crime.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

I've no idea what "stealthed" is???
But having sex with Someone who has not consented to it is rape.
It's fcuking simple...Consent to protected sex and receive unprotected sex is rape.
Not on the scale of brutality of violent sexual rape but rape all the same and the punishment should fit the crime.

If it is to be illegal then it should be a separate offence to rape. 'Sex by deception' perhaps?

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

If it is to be illegal then it should be a separate offence to rape. 'Sex by deception' perhaps?

Now we're getting somewhere....
There's a seriousness scale.
And what we're talking about is not a serious as a woman being dragged down a back alley and raped.
It's deception and its not what was consented to.
It has to be taken into consideration that the woman didn't consent to unprotected sex,she consented to sex but not unprotected sex and therefore the punishment shouldn't be anyway near as harsh but still has to be some punishment for the deception.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere....
There's a seriousness scale.
And what we're talking about is not a serious as a woman being dragged down a back alley and raped.
It's deception and its not what was consented to.
It has to be taken into consideration that the woman didn't consent to unprotected sex,she consented to sex but not unprotected sex and therefore the punishment shouldn't be anyway near as harsh but still has to be some punishment for the deception.

It's still not rape and to call it so trivializes real rape which is a terrible crime.

RayM

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

I still wouldn't consider it rape. Same as a man with a woman. Not nice and not to be encouraged. But calling it rape trivializes real rape. And isn't exposing someone to HIV already illegal? Why does it have to be rape?

Based on the fact that you are deliberately putting your potentially harmful bodily fluids inside that person without their consent, would you be prepared to entertain the idea of calling it an assault?

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Good thing I'm not bisexual so.

I never said you were. Not all men who have sex with both men and women identify as bisexual. Anyway, your sexual proclivities are entirely your own business.

Alizrian Crimson wrote:

She tricked me into giving my consent. Why is that ok? Why is ok just because I'm man and her a woman? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

It's absolutely not ok that she tricked you, but you still consented to unprotected sex, and by the time her actions have any effect on your jism, it has already left your body. Therefore, it cannot be an assault against you.

please helpThank YOU

What about this your having sex with consent with a condom next the `condom slips off accidental . In the heat of the moment, is that rape to ? . your still having sex with out a condom?.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

It's still not rape and to call it so trivializes real rape which is a terrible crime.

Back to square one....Sex without consent is rape.

gitzy16v

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What about this your having sex with consent with a condom next the `condom slips off accidental . In the heat of the moment, is that rape to ? . your still having sex with out a condom?.

It's an accident...sure you said it yourself.

RayM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What about this your having sex with consent with a condom next the `condom slips off accidental . In the heat of the moment, is that rape to ? . your still having sex with out a condom?.

That just means that (to put it politely) your condom is too big for your cock.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

Based on the fact that you are deliberately putting your potentially harmful bodily fluids inside that person without their consent, would you be prepared to entertain the idea of calling it an assault?


I never said you were. Not all men who have sex with both men and women identify as bisexual. Anyway, your sexual proclivities are entirely your own business.



It's absolutely not ok that she tricked you, but you still consented to unprotected sex, and by the time her actions have any effect on your jism, it has already left your body. Therefore, it cannot be an assault against you.

Sure. If gave that person HIV. But don't we already have a law for that?

Any man who has sex with both men and women is bisexual by default.

But I gave my consent in the belief that she was on the pill. I would not have consented if she had been honest. I don't see the difference. By your logic both are rape. Or is that the man is being held to a different standard?

Anyway, good thing both scenarios are extremely rare.

Alizrian Crimson

gitzy16v wrote: »

Back to square one....Sex without consent is rape.

Yes it's a 'less serious rape' as you said, which I reject.

Make it crime if you want but don't call it rape. That's my opinion.

gitzy16v

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Yes it's a 'less serious rape' as you said, which I reject.

Make it crime if you want but don't call it rape. That's my opinion.

Sex without consent is rape.
Don't give two fcuks how you'd like to spin it.

please helpThank YOU

gitzy16v wrote: »

It's an accident...sure you said it yourself.

But when your driving a car and you crash and say some is killed you can be changed with careless driving our manslaughter.
that was a accident to. So there would have to be a `New law brought in `careless sex ,accidental rape,,

Alizrian Crimson

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What about this your having sex with consent with a condom next the `condom slips off accidental . In the heat of the moment, is that rape to ? . your still having sex with out a condom?.

That's a good point. It slips off, you don't realise and now you're a rapist. Allegedly.

Outlaw Pete

I gave my best friend permission to drive my car last weekend but I told him not to use the motorway..... few hours later I hear that he had used the motorway... so I phoned the Gardai and told him my best friend stole my car... they laughed at me.

The above didn't happen of course... but that's what accusing someone of rape because they didn't wear a condom is akin to. If a man slips off the condom unbeknownst to the woman, he's an asshole, dickhead, twat, fcuktarded moron... don't sleep with him again.

To sanction sex as rape if a condom was not used when it had been agreed upon would mean that you would also have to sanction sex taking place when a woman has lied about taking the pill as being rape too. Do all of you saying a man not using a condom (when they had said they would) is rape... also believe that women are raping men when they lie about being on the pill?? You'd have to.

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

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

Ever hear that 2-Live Crew song, "Face Down Ass Up" :P

RayM

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Sure. If gave that person HIV. But don't we already have a law for that?

It's against the law in other countries, but not in Ireland. But whether you know you have an STD or not, would you not agree that deliberately putting your bodily fluids inside a person without their consent is - at the very least - an assault against them?

Alizrian Crimson wrote:

Any man who has sex with both men and women is bisexual by default.

I thought you said you weren't bisexual. Anyway, what you do with other men in the privacy of your own home (or wherever you choose to do it) is your own business and isn't relevant to the thread.

Alizrian Crimson wrote:

But I gave my consent in the belief that she was on the pill. I would not have consented if she had been honest. I don't see the difference. By your logic both are rape. Or is that the man is being held to a different standard?

Anyway, good thing both scenarios are extremely rare.

But her failure to take the pill cannot physically affect you in the same way as you removing the condom during sex can affect her. Certainly, deceiving you into impregnating her will affect you in many ways (whether she pursues you for maintenance payments or not), but can something that affects her body chemistry possibly be considered a physical assault against you? I don't think it can.

wonderfullife

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't know. It's definitely a violation and it's placing her at risk that she hasn't consented to. Would she consent to sex without a condom? If not and you do it anyway then I'd say yes it is as she hasn't given consent

Nonsense. Condoms can and often do break and rip.

If a woman consents to sex and literally puts the condom on the man herself, and it rips during intercourse, what then? Tough luck on both sides? She didn't consent to unprotected sex and neither did he but as soon as it rips that's the resulting situation. Does the man get to claim she put it on arseways on purpose?

More to the point, where do you draw the line? Let's say the man asks a woman "Are you on the pill?" and she says "yes" and it's subsequently discovered she had forgot to take it or was just deliberately lying, what then?

She raped him?

The minute you consent to sex with someone, you give consent to sex. No form of contraception is fool-proof. There will always be some element of risk of getting pregnant or contracting an STI.

The idea that we're now quantifying what level of risk you actually consented to is a complete farce.

If we're classifying someone taking a condom off as "rape" then we need to classify any woman lying about having the coil, pill or whatever else as "rape" too. It's complete nonsense.

I don't want the courts full of women being charged with rape for "lying" about being on the pill or coil. I don't want men trying to evade child maintenance by using this defence. I don't want women calling the cops any time a condom is either removed on purpose or accident during sex.

How about some personal responsibility??? If you're going to have sex with a girl who says she's on the pill or has the bar or coil, then don't just assume that's the truth and double up with a condom. If you're going to have sex with a guy who says he'll wear a condom, don't just assume it's the truth and double up with pill/female condom.

Or hey, even better, if you don't trust the person you're about to have sex with, then don't have sex with them.

Alizrian Crimson

RayM wrote: »

It's against the law in other countries, but not in Ireland. But whether you know you have an STD or not, would you not agree that deliberately putting your bodily fluids inside a person without their consent is - at the very least - an assault against them?


I thought you said you weren't bisexual. Anyway, what you do with other men in the privacy of your own home (or wherever you choose to do it) is your own business and isn't relevant to the thread.



But her failure to take the pill cannot physically affect you in the same way as you removing the condom during sex can affect her. Certainly, deceiving you into impregnating her will affect you in many ways (whether she pursues you for maintenance payments or not), but can something that affects her body chemistry possibly be considered a physical assault against you? I don't think it can.

Well it should be illegal to deliberately give someone HIV that's for sure. As for the assault thing, well it depends. You injecting someone with your blood is wrong but it's not so clear when it comes to sex. What if I tell a girl not to get her juices or saliva into me but she does any way? Also you are implying stealthing always involves ejaculation which I'm not sure about. If stealthing even happens in the first place

The bisexual thing? I never have and never will have sex with a man. If I somehow did I wouldn't consider it rape if he removed the condom. That's the point I was making. You either misread me or are misinterpreting me

Can't physically effect me? Eh it takes my sperm and which then fertilizes her eggs. And nine months later I'm a daddy, which I didn't want. She tricked me into giving my consent. And what if she lies about being disease free and I catch something? What if she's wearing a female condom which she removes without my knowledge? Is that rape?

Another issues with classifying this as rape: the condom breaks and you don't realise and don't immediately stop. She decides you raped her and you end up in court. That fair?

I also don't buy the 'sex without consent is always rape' line since it leads to some very gray areas, especially when alcohol is involved.

Alizrian Crimson

wonderfullife wrote: »

Nonsense. Condoms can and often do break and rip....


How about some personal responsibility??? If you're going to have sex with a girl who says she's on the pill or has the bar or coil, then don't just assume that's the truth and double up with a condom. If you're going to have sex with a guy who says he'll wear a condom, don't just assume it's the truth and double up with pill/female condom.

Or hey, even better, if you don't trust the person you're about to have sex with, then don't have sex with them.

Hey man it's the 21st century, personal responsibility is an alien concept to many!

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

It really can't be considered rape. Rape is sex that happens under duress or while unconscious.

It's deceptive and wrong. But it broadens the definition of rape from an extremely traumatising event into something less serious.

What if a woman only consented to sex because the guy lied about being a football player? Or if he was unmarried? Or he had a big penis? Or he would make her cum first? Or he would engage in foreplay? Or he'd say certain words she liked to hear?
All of that can be considered being dishonest with someone in order to have sex.

Alizrian Crimson

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It really can't be considered rape. Rape is sex that happens under duress or while unconscious.

It's deceptive and wrong. But it broadens the definition of rape from an extremely traumatising event into something less serious.

What if a woman only consented to sex because the guy lied about being a football player? Or if he was unmarried? Or he had a big penis? Or he would make her cum first? Or he would engage in foreplay? Or he'd say certain words she liked to hear?
All of that can be considered being dishonest with someone in order to have sex.

Agree completely. Here's a rape I read about. Three men gang raped a 15 year old girl in an Austrian town as she was walking home. This is a despicable, evil act, and honestly I hope these ****ers get tied to a truck and dragged through the streets.

https://www.rt.com/news/389016-austria-town-refugees-ban-rape/

This is why I can't accept taking your condom off is rape. To do so trivialises vile crimes like this.

Brian?

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

It's still not rape and to call it so trivializes real rape which is a terrible crime.

You keep saying this. You're the one trivialising rape.

It's this simple: sec without consent is rape. The severity has of the potential punishment will depend on how the crime was committed.

This is already happening. A "date rape" will receive a lower sentence than a violent rape. Both are rape as there is no consent given by one party. Just as no consent is given for "stealthing".

Your argument that it's not rape is based on what? What circumstances need to be present for it to be "real rape"? Isn't the lack of consent enough for you? Why do you want to trivialise an act of rape?