Consensual sex could still be rape rules a UK high court-unbelievable

[sunni56]

BBC News - Sex consent could still lead to rape charge, judges say

A woman who has agreed to sexual intercourse could still be a victim of rape, how appalling is that? If you don't want him, don't bed him! The UK is becoming a society strangled by ridiculous bureaucracy where every penetrative thrust has to be signed off. I'm sure most married couples will not pay attention to this nonsense. It's an insult to victims of actual rape.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

BBC News - Sex consent could still lead to rape charge, judges say

A woman who has agreed to sexual intercourse could still be a victim of rape, how appalling is that? If you don't want him, don't bed him! The UK is becoming a society strangled by ridiculous bureaucracy where every penetrative thrust has to be signed off. I'm sure most married couples will not pay attention to this nonsense. It's an insult to victims of actual rape.

The penetration was consensual. The ejaculation without any barrier method of birth control or withdrawal was not consensual.

 

[sunni56]

The penetration was consensual. The ejaculation without any barrier method of birth control or withdrawal was not consensual.

But that's just none of our business. She trusted the guy and she paid the price. People should not be allowed to go to court for every unwanted pregnancy, people should take responsibilty for their own decisions. Do you not agree?

 

[dawny0826]

The penetration was consensual. The ejaculation without any barrier method of birth control or withdrawal was not consensual.

Yup. It's pretty clear, per the article.

I do question the sensibilities of people in these types of situations. If the sex was consentual, why couldn't they wrap it up? Problem solved.

But, legally, I think it important that these laws exist to protect women against such agression, particularly when such dismissal can have such emotional impact on a woman not to mention the physical...STD's...pregnancy. Sheesh.

 

[sunni56]

Yup. It's pretty clear, per the article.

I do question the sensibilities of people in these types of situations. If the sex was consentual, why couldn't they wrap it up? Problem solved.

But, legally, I think it important that these laws exist to protect women against such agression, particularly when such dismissal can have such emotional impact on a woman not to mention the physical...STD's...pregnancy. Sheesh.

The laws exist but as they currently stand, they are unenforcable. A man who claims that he couldn't pull out in time is not charged, which defeats the purpose of such a law in the first place.

 

[dawny0826]

The laws exist but as they currently stand, they are unenforcable. A man who claims that he couldn't pull out in time is not charged, which defeats the purpose of such a law in the first place.

That doesn't seem true. It seems logical to me that if the accusation is rape, normal investigation is in order. Clearly, by the article that YOU yourself posted, there isn't an issue with interpretation of law in the court system. If she said no and there's a good case presented to suggest that he forcibly ejaculated against her will, the law intrepts this action as rape.

Therefore, women who accuse men of ejaculating against their wishes would be accusing men of rape and law enforecment would have to investigate. The law would be enforced in this manner, through the same investigatory procedures as any other report of rape.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But that's just none of our business. She trusted the guy and she paid the price. People should not be allowed to go to court for every unwanted pregnancy, people should take responsibilty for their own decisions. Do you not agree?

That isn't what the article was saying, nor is it what I believe is what will follow. What was reported was that the initial penetration was consensual, but that the man told the woman that no matter what, he was going to ejaculate inside of her without clear consent. This was what I surmised from the article.

This does not follow that every unwanted pregnancy will be taken to court as a rape charge. Both partners can consent to unprotected sexual intercourse where internal ejaculation occurs. Both partners can consent to protected sexual intercourse where birth control methods fail. Things like this can and do happen without anybody feeling assaulted. But this case in particular - where an act occurred without consent - does further the discussion according to what should or should not fall under the term "rape."

 

[sunni56]

That doesn't seem true. It seems logical to me that if the accusation is rape, normal investigation is in order. Clearly, by the article that YOU yourself posted, there isn't an issue with interpretation of law in the court system. If she said no and there's a good case presented to suggest that he forcibly ejaculated against her will, the law intrepts this action as rape.

Therefore, women who accuse men of ejaculating against their wishes would be accusing men of rape and law enforecment would have to investigate. The law would be enforced.

They are unenforceable.

"However, Lord Judge said that men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for rape, adding: ‘These things happen – they always have and they always will.

‘No offence is committed when they do. They underline why withdrawal is not a safe method of contraception.’" Sex with consent

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The laws exist but as they currently stand, they are unenforcable. A man who claims that he couldn't pull out in time is not charged, which defeats the purpose of such a law in the first place.

It then falls under the "he-said-she-said" dilemma, which is nothing new.

 

[sunni56]

That isn't what the article was saying, nor is it what I believe is what will follow. What was reported was that the initial penetration was consensual, but that the man told the woman that no matter what, he was going to ejaculate inside of her without clear consent. This was what I surmised from the article.

This does not follow that every unwanted pregnancy will be taken to court as a rape charge. Both partners can consent to unprotected sexual intercourse where internal ejaculation occurs. Both partners can consent to protected sexual intercourse where birth control methods fail. Things like this can and do happen without anybody feeling assaulted. But this case in particular - where an act occurred without consent - does further the discussion according to what should or should not fall under the term "rape."

I don't think it's correct to allow a woman to file a complaint against a man whom she allowed to penetrate her, regradrless of whether or not the ejaculation inside her was consensual. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. You might disagree, but that's my opinion. It's not even enforceable anyway, too much holes in this ruling.

 

[sunni56]

It then falls under the "he-said-she-said" dilemma, which is nothing new.

Well, the Lord Judge clarified that and said there would be no offense. He-said-she-said scenarios is not good news for those who file charges, especially in consensual sex!

 

[dawny0826]

They are unenforceable.

"However, Lord Judge said that men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for rape, adding: ‘These things happen – they always have and they always will.

‘No offence is committed when they do. They underline why withdrawal is not a safe method of contraception.’" Sex with consent

You're not reading your own article correctly. The dude's actions were deemed rape and rightfully so. He ejaculated when she said no. His actions resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.

The law is in place for good reason, for people like these two idiots.

What the judge was saying is that if the guy had tried to withdrawal in time but failed to, it would not have been rape, because these things do happen and it is easy for men to ejaculate quickly during sex. But, that wasn't the case with this couple. He was agressive and forcible. He knew what he was doing, which is why it was deemed rape.

Yes, this is enforceable. This guy is now a rapist. But, there may be others who will come along and will not be found guilty, because the judge rules through testimony and evidence that the man genuinely tried to avoid ejaculation.

This law is a good thing. Hopefully it will inspire people to make better choices.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

They are unenforceable.

"However, Lord Judge said that men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for rape, adding: ‘These things happen – they always have and they always will.

‘No offence is committed when they do. They underline why withdrawal is not a safe method of contraception.’" Sex with consent

If the sex is consensual, and if ejaculation occurred pre-maturely, and if the method of birth control agreed between both parties was withdrawal, then prosecutors according to the courts ought not to pursue a rape charge.

However...

If the sex is consensual overall, but the method of birth control that results in internal ejaculation was not agreed upon and where consent was not present, this is a different situation. It is being discussed where consensual penetration need not assume that all things that happen afterward is legally within bounds.

What everyone agrees on, however, is that unprotected sex that includes withdrawal is not a reliable form of birth control.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

"If you don't want him don't bed him"

So basically what you are saying is once a woman has consented to having sex with a man she has no further right to object to anything he might want to do to her?
Him saying he will ejaculate inside her if he wants to and doing just that even though she objected to it before hand is not a violation of her sexual freedom?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well, the Lord Judge clarified that and said there would be no offense. He-said-she-said scenarios is not good news for those who file charges, especially in consensual sex!

Only for those who consensually agree to withdrawal as the form of birth control. There is no rape when a couple both agree to unprotected sex, hope the man pulls out in time, and suddenly ejaculates pre-maturely. That's an accident, and does not fall under the definition of rape.

But the case in the article you linked us to was a very different picture. There was consensual penetration, but the ejaculation was NOT consensual. It was forced inside the woman. What now follows is if consensual penetration is supposed to assume ejaculation automatically falls under the definition of penetration. I don't believe ejaculation is equated to penetration.

Therefore, it is possible to have consensual sexual intercourse that can result in a rape charge if internal ejaculation is not consensual. Take a heterosexual couple who know each other well, and that the woman is well aware of her male partner's aversion to anything inserted into his anus. It would be as if that man and woman were having consensual intercourse, and the woman told the man she was going to insert something into the man's anus, and then said she didn't care what he wanted that she was going to do it anyway. Before he says anything, she inserts a pencil.

Think about it. Was this man's rights violated? Does this situation fall under the definition of sexual assault? Even though they agreed to sexual intercourse initially?

 

[HonestJoe]

A woman who has agreed to sexual intercourse could still be a victim of rape, how appalling is that? If you don't want him, don't bed him! The UK is becoming a society strangled by ridiculous bureaucracy where every penetrative thrust has to be signed off. I'm sure most married couples will not pay attention to this nonsense. It's an insult to victims of actual rape.

So you're basically saying that from the moment you consent to any sexual act with someone, they're free to impose any other sexual act on you regardless of whether you agree to it or not?

The legal and practical difficulties are obvious and often insurmountable, as is the case with rape in general, but that doesn't mean the fundamental principals of consent should be dismissed.

 

[Quintessence]

Rape is probably the wrong word for it, but I agree that situations like this need to be fairly covered to protect women who do not want to have children. Honestly, that is probably the most important aspect of women's rights there is: the right to not have children.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Rape is probably the wrong word for it, but I agree that situations like this need to be fairly covered to protect women who do not want to have children. Honestly, that is probably the most important aspect of women's rights there is: the right to not have children.

An act is occurring internally within a human being without their consent. Whether it's a finger, a penis, an object, an enema, or semen. I think it isn't just about a woman who doesn't wish to have children, because the same thing can happen to a man or to a post-menopausal woman.

Different jurisdictions having varying distinctions of "rape", which I think is what confuses the issue. But ejaculating semen into another human being without their consent can, according to the article, be considered an assault. To what degree, it seems, can vary according to the jurisdictions investigative findings and interpretation of it's own laws.

 

[sunni56]

You're not reading your own article correctly. The dude's actions were deemed rape and rightfully so. He ejaculated when she said no. His actions resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.

The law is in place for good reason, for people like these two idiots.

What the judge was saying is that if the guy had tried to withdrawal in time but failed to, it would not have been rape, because these things do happen and it is easy for men to ejaculate quickly during sex. But, that wasn't the case with this couple. He was agressive and forcible. He knew what he was doing, which is why it was deemed rape.

Yes, this is enforceable. This guy is now a rapist. But, there may be others who will come along and will not be found guilty, because the judge rules through testimony and evidence that the man genuinely tried to avoid ejaculation.

This law is a good thing. Hopefully it will inspire people to make better choices.

It's thankfully not enforceable like I said, and as the Lord Judge pointed out. I'd be very surprised if it achieves any significant number of convictions.

 

[sunni56]

"If you don't want him don't bed him"

So basically what you are saying is once a woman has consented to having sex with a man she has no further right to object to anything he might want to do to her?
Him saying he will ejaculate inside her if he wants to and doing just that even though she objected to it before hand is not a violation of her sexual freedom?

That's exactly what I'm saying, I couldn't put it better myself.