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

[dawny0826]

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.

It is enforceable. If the law will intrepret such action as "rape", it has to be enforceable.

 

[Aquitaine]

An odd case. But still, he broke the agreement with the woman, and did so in an aggressive manner. This case further highlights how ineffective withdrawal is as birth control.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Ah, that's fair. I think to me when I hear the word "rape" I think of a level of brutality that this case simply doesn't have. I bet that is the case for others too. But the important part is that something that went on was not consensual, and that makes it assault. Sexual assault is probably a better way to put it instead of using that emotionally-jarring word "rape."

 

[sunni56]

It is enforceable. If the law will intrepret such action as "rape", it has to be enforceable.

Well, it isn't. Like I said, there won't be too many convictions.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"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.

Let's say sex that was consented to resulted in a woman who asphyxiated from being choked to the point of losing consciousness, and she survived but suffers from brain damage as a result of loss of oxygen to the brain.

Let's say that she never consented to it, though choking is a fetish with some couples.

Was this a hypothetical situation of "too-bad-so-sad-ho-hum"? And that the woman shouldn't have consented to sex entirely in the first place? Or were her rights violated?

 

[sunni56]

Let's say sex that was consented to resulted in a woman who asphyxiated from being choked to the point of losing consciousness, and she survived but suffers from brain damage as a result of loss of oxygen to the brain.

Let's say that she never consented to it, though choking is a fetish with some couples.

Was this a hypothetical situation of "too-bad-so-sad-ho-hum"? And that the woman shouldn't have consented to sex entirely in the first place? Or were her rights violated?

I think I've given my viewpoint a sufficient number of times.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ah, that's fair. I think to me when I hear the word "rape" I think of a level of brutality that this case simply doesn't have. I bet that is the case for others too. But the important part is that something that went on was not consensual, and that makes it assault. Sexual assault is probably a better way to put it instead of using that emotionally-jarring word "rape."

Discussions that involve cases like this and/or the Stuebenville, OH case are valuable to society I think when we consider what informed consent looks like, and what defines rape as a criminal act.

What many people interpret as truly acceptable "rape" is the stranger jumping out of a bush attacking a conservatively-dressed white woman walking to her car or to her house, ripping her clothes off a knife-point, while she is crying and pleading for him to stop, and he duct tapes her mouth shut while he angrily penetrates her with his penis. He may or may not physically assault her in the process, but the other points of the story tend to be most relevant to defining how rape must fit those parameters to be considered "rape."

A parallel is if the only way a society would ever consider somebody to be a victim of theft is if a white male was walking to his car or house and was mugged at gunpoint. All other forms of theft are considered grey areas, or that perhaps the man was negligent, or that he asked for it, or that his financial records and credit report are considered evidence in court for the legitimacy of his accusation of theft.

I do ask if narrowing "rape" to just one specific qualifier is helpful to law enforcement or to society. There may be different degrees of rape, but must rape be narrowed in its legal definition simply because the word itself is emotionally jarring?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think I've given my viewpoint a sufficient number of times.

I will take your response that a man who forces himself onto a woman in any way imaginable after initial consent is given for intercourse is completely innocent of any harm done to the woman by his subsequent actions.

I find that view distinctly disturbing.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, it isn't. Like I said, there won't be too many convictions.

Hi Sunni,
It's not for you or me to say whether there will be convictions.
I think our Judicial system is brilliant.

Thank goodness that the Judges decided that this case shall be heard.
At least two of the judges are men, so nobody can make any silly suggestions about bias.
This nasty little defendant said he would be "coming inside her" and had added "I'll do it if I want". (against her specific wishes).
The woman became pregnant.
If she decides to have an abortion then she will go through that trauma, and risk the possibility of a 'classic' nervous breakdown because of it at some distant point in the future. Oh, trust me on that one!
The prosecutors need to be involved in a difficult 'heads up' meeting with somebody very big and very nasty.

A very clear message needs to be sent out to all such people as the defendant, that they will be pursued and at least tried after such disgusting filthy behaviour.

The simple rules are:-
'Buy, Keep, Use..... a condom..... always.'
'Obey your partner's wishes to the letter.'
'Don't ever break your word to a partner over such matters.'

 

[Aquitaine]

I will take your response that a man who forces himself onto a woman in any way imaginable after initial consent is given for intercourse is completely innocent of any harm done to the woman by his subsequent actions.

I find that view distinctly disturbing.

Indeed, I didn't like the "she trusted the guy and paid the price" part. As if it's basically all her fault...... silly Woman.

 

[sunni56]

I will take your response that a man who forces himself onto a woman in any way imaginable after initial consent is given for intercourse is completely innocent of any harm done to the woman by his subsequent actions.

I find that view distinctly disturbing.

That's a pretty vile interpretation of my words, but you are free to interpret as you see fit. That's certainly something you don't need consent for lol

 

[sunni56]

Hi Sunni,
It's not for you or me to say whether there will be convictions.
I think our Judicial system is brilliant.

Thank goodness that the Judges decided that this case shall be heard.
At least two of the judges are men, so nobody can make any silly suggestions about bias.
This nasty little defendant said he would be "coming inside her" and had added "I'll do it if I want". (against her specific wishes).
The woman became pregnant.
If she decides to have an abortion then she will go through that trauma, and risk the possibility of a 'classic' nervous breakdown because of it at some distant point in the future. Oh, trust me on that one!
The prosecutors need to be involved in a difficult 'heads up' meeting with somebody very big and very nasty.

A very clear message needs to be sent out to all such people as the defendant, that they will be pursued and at least tried after such disgusting filthy behaviour.

The simple rules are:-
'Buy, Keep, Use..... a condom..... always.'
'Obey your partner's wishes to the letter.'
'Don't ever break your word to a partner over such matters.'

I don't know about you but I wouldn't the police to get involved every time partners break promises to each other. The bureaucracy as it is is already out of control. But it's nice to hear a British voice here, rather than a yank or some other place.

 

[Alceste]

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.

He should be responsible for his decision too. When you do not respect a woman's boundaries or willfully violate the clear terms of her consent, you might be charged with a crime.

Why not? If a man consents to play table tennis with you and you smack him about the head with the paddle, you might also be charged with a crime.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's a pretty vile interpretation of my words, but you are free to interpret as you see fit. That's certainly something you don't need consent for lol

I agree it's a vile interpretation but it's the one I took too. If it isn't an accurate representation of your opinion, you are free to clarify it.

 

[Alceste]

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.

The risk of legal consequences is enough of a deterrent for me. This is more about education than criminal justice for me. It is easier to get the point across what "consent" means when the court acknowledges that a situation like this is a crime.

 

[Alceste]

Indeed, I didn't like the "she trusted the guy and paid the price" part. As if it's basically all her fault...... silly Woman.

I don't like it either. It's a good example of everything that turns me off about Islam.

 

[Kerr]

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

So you think a man has the right to control a womans body without her consent :areyoucra? As far as I am concerned, a man has no right to a womans body. She is "allowing him access", so to speak, but he has no right or claim to it because its her body and only her body.

 

[dawny0826]

Well, it isn't. Like I said, there won't be too many convictions.

There's a difference between ENFORCING the law and CONVICTING someone of a crime. I think it's business as usual in terms of enforcing law and investigating reports of rape. Whether or not one is convicted of rape is contingent upon how evidence is interpreted within the context of law.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't like it either. It's a good example of everything that turns me off about Islam.

It's more than a little harsh to condemn the entirety of Islam on the basis of a single anonymous idiot and/or troll.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't know about you but I wouldn't the police to get involved every time partners break promises to each other. The bureaucracy as it is is already out of control. But it's nice to hear a British voice here, rather than a yank or some other place.

Hi Sunni, .......

Yep, another Brit.
Straight up.... this is not about a small matter. We can't be proud about very much anymore, so for goodness sake let us at least be able to say that we have a half decent legislation, enforcement, trial and judicial system.

This is not about bureaucracy, it's about protection and justice for everybody. We need to send a message to types like the defendant, something simple, easy to understand, so that they know that if they do bad things like this then they must answer.

I've no doubt that our system will work well, and that this defendant will have a decent defence team, and if convicted, they will offer all kinds of mitigating circumstances.

We should not criticise any of this process, but wait till the Brit system has operated and judged...... then we can comment.

How about that?