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

[Wherenextcolumbus]

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

Are you sure that is what you are saying? Because if so I'll take that as a confession

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Hypothetical scenario:

You and a seller agree to buy a car at a certain price. You hand over the cash and await delivery of the car. When the car arrives, you find that it's not actually the agreed-upon car you saw when you signed, but the same model 2 years older, 50,000 km more on the odometer, and signs of repair from a severe collision. Which do you think is the appropriate response when you complain to the police?

- "Yes, that sounds like fraud. We'll investigate him and charge him if the allegations prove true."

- "That's just none of our business. You trusted the guy and you paid the price. People shouldn't be allowed to go to court for every bad transaction. People should take responsibility for their own decisions."

 

[Aquitaine]

Hypothetical scenario:

You and a seller agree to buy a car at a certain price. You hand over the cash and await delivery of the car. When the car arrives, you find that it's not actually the agreed-upon car you saw when you signed, but the same model 2 years older, 50,000 km more on the odometer, and signs of repair from a severe collision. Which do you think is the appropriate response when you complain to the police?

- "Yes, that sounds like fraud. We'll investigate him and charge him if the allegations prove true."

- "That's just none of our business. You trusted the guy and you paid the price. People shouldn't be allowed to go to court for every bad transaction. People should take responsibility for their own decisions."

Very well put, fruballs to you! EDIT: I've got to spread them :/ Consider yourself owed

 

[dust1n]

"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.

Wait... so saying "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" is saying exactly what you are saying? You couldn't put it better?

If a woman has no further right to object to anything a man might want to do to her, then, certainly a man is entitled to murder a woman two seconds following penetration...

 

[sunni56]

Hypothetical scenario:

You and a seller agree to buy a car at a certain price. You hand over the cash and await delivery of the car. When the car arrives, you find that it's not actually the agreed-upon car you saw when you signed, but the same model 2 years older, 50,000 km more on the odometer, and signs of repair from a severe collision. Which do you think is the appropriate response when you complain to the police?

- "Yes, that sounds like fraud. We'll investigate him and charge him if the allegations prove true."

- "That's just none of our business. You trusted the guy and you paid the price. People shouldn't be allowed to go to court for every bad transaction. People should take responsibility for their own decisions."

False analogy because you have overlooked both the principles of the status quo and also the relationship between the two agents. Consider this analogy; you lend your close friend your car for two days. He brings it back 4 days later damaged. Here you can clearly see the analogy is more perfect due to the following factors:

1) You trust your friend with your car just as the woman trusted her partner with her genital.

2) There is no legal contract or payment for lending your friend the car just as there is no legal contract or payment for the sexual intercourse the woman engages in.

3) You agree to lending your friend the car, hence the status quo is that your friend has the car in his possession. The woman allows her partner to be inside her; hence the status quo is that he is inside her.

In both scenarios, it is my opinion that the ultimate responsibility lies with you for lending your car and also on her for allowing penetration in the first place. Once you reach the status quo position, the fault lies on the one who allowed that to happen.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

Not at all. Just pointing out the subtext the term has in common usage, which does not match up with what legal usage may be (or should be).

Though I have to say the image I think of when I consider "rape" is not what you described. *laughs* Statistically, stranger rape is extremely rare. No, I think of a woman with her boyfriend and him manipulating or aggressively forcing her into sex (whether it is oral, anal, or foreplay) even though she doesn't want to. I don't consider non-consentual ejaculation during consensual sex to be "rape," but I do think males should be held accountable for impregnating a woman against her consent.

Maybe we should call it non-consentual impregnation. The sex itself is consensual, but the woman didn't consent to having a kid with the sex act.

 

[Alceste]

False analogy because you have overlooked both the principles of the status quo and also the relationship between the two agents. Consider this analogy; you lend your close friend your car for two days. He brings it back 4 days later damaged. Here you can clearly see the analogy is more perfect due to the following factors:

1) You trust your friend with your car just as the woman trusted her partner with her genital.

2) There is no legal contract or payment for lending your friend the car just as there is no legal contract or payment for the sexual intercourse the woman engages in.

3) You agree to lending your friend the car, hence the status quo is that your friend has the car in his possession. The woman allows her partner to be inside her; hence the status quo is that he is inside her.

In both scenarios, it is my opinion that the ultimate responsibility lies with you for lending your car and also on her for allowing penetration in the first place. Once you reach the status quo position, the fault lies on the one who allowed that to happen.

This wasn't an accident. Your friend would have to have crashed the car on purpose, saying "ha, I'm going to crash your car now and there's nothing you can do about it."

Grounds for a lawsuit? Yes. Criminal? Possibly.

 

[dust1n]

False analogy because you have overlooked both the principles of the status quo and also the relationship between the two agents. Consider this analogy; you lend your close friend your car for two days. He brings it back 4 days later damaged. Here you can clearly see the analogy is more perfect due to the following factors:

1) You trust your friend with your car just as the woman trusted her partner with her genital.

2) There is no legal contract or payment for lending your friend the car just as there is no legal contract or payment for the sexual intercourse the woman engages in.

3) You agree to lending your friend the car, hence the status quo is that your friend has the car in his possession. The woman allows her partner to be inside her; hence the status quo is that he is inside her.

In both scenarios, it is my opinion that the ultimate responsibility lies with you for lending your car and also on her for allowing penetration in the first place. Once you reach the status quo position, the fault lies on the one who allowed that to happen.

You could sue your friend for wrecking your car and for any damages you might be held liable with.

 

[sunni56]

This wasn't an accident. Your friend would have to have crashed the car on purpose, saying "ha, I'm going to crash your car now and there's nothing you can do about it."

Grounds for a lawsuit? Yes. Criminal? Possibly.

I didn't say anything about a crash. I said the car was damaged. And you need to read more carefully next time because I stated who I think is responsible and how the situation should be resolved in my opinion. This discussion is not about existing laws, if anything it's about justifying my opposition to them as in my opening post.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't say anything about a crash. I said the car was damaged. And you need to read more carefully next time because I stated who I think is responsible and how the situation should be resolved in my opinion. This discussion is not about existing laws, if anything it's about justifying my opposition to them as in my opening post.

I think you need to read more carefully. Do you disagree there is a difference between intentional damage and accidental damage?

While we accept some degree of risk if accidents when we trust others with our bodies or our stuff, it is unusual for anyone to expect that people will purposefully violate the clear terms of our consent.

When this happens, the party who violated those terms is culpable, not the person who agreed to then.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't say anything about a crash. I said the car was damaged. And you need to read more carefully next time because I stated who I think is responsible and how the situation should be resolved in my opinion. This discussion is not about existing laws, if anything it's about justifying my opposition to them as in my opening post.

I think you need to read more carefully. Particularly the specific details of this rape charge. Do you disagree there is a difference between intentional damage and accidental damage?

While we accept some degree of risk of accidents when we trust others with our bodies or our stuff, it is unusual for anyone to expect that people will purposefully violate the clear terms of our consent.

When this happens, the party who violated those terms is culpable, not the person who agreed to them.

 

[sunni56]

I think you need to read more carefully. Particularly the specific details of this rape charge. Do you disagree there is a difference between intentional damage and accidental damage?

While we accept some degree of risk of accidents when we trust others with our bodies or our stuff, it is unusual for anyone to expect that people will purposefully violate the clear terms of our consent.

When this happens, the party who violated those terms is culpable, not the person who agreed to them.

Eh no. You need to read more carefully vis a vis the context of my remark. They are my opinion hence cannot be objectively wrong. If you're not happy with that, that's just none of my business.

 

[dust1n]

In America, it doesn't matter if there was a crash or if any damage was intentional or accidental. If you prove someone did it, than they are liable for the damage.

Granted.. if a friend of mine wrecks my car, I can sue him. If he wrecks it and kills someone, then I am liable for the damage done to other people, but I can still sue my friend for what I had to pay as a result of his actions.

Not that it matters. Women aren't cars.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point with the analogy - which was missed, apparently - is that consent to something does not imply consent to anything. Consent to particular sexual things doesn't imply consent to any and all things the guy feels like doing to her.

Edit: if you get consent for one thing but then do something else instead, then you DON'T have consent for what you actually did.

 

[Alceste]

My point with the analogy - which was missed, apparently - is that consent to something does not imply consent to anything. Consent to particular sexual things doesn't imply consent to any and all things the guy feels like doing to her.

Edit: if you get consent for one thing but then do something else instead, then you DON'T have consent for what you actually did.

I wonder how he would feel if a woman "consented to have sex" with him, tied him up and sodomized him with a strap on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wonder how he would feel if a woman "consented to have sex" with him, tied him up and sodomized him with a strap on.

What's not to like?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My point with the analogy - which was missed, apparently - is that consent to something does not imply consent to anything. Consent to particular sexual things doesn't imply consent to any and all things the guy feels like doing to her.

Edit: if you get consent for one thing but then do something else instead, then you DON'T have consent for what you actually did.

Precisely. The bolded part explains my position perfectly, thank you.

 

[Skwim]

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

Here is the law.

"England and Wales

Rape is defined as follows:

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
​

Source: Wikipedia

​

From how I read it, consent to ejaculate or not doesn't enter into the issue. Under English law rape only concerns itself with non-consensual sexual penetration, and doesn't speak to anything other than that. Sexual penetration being "the entry into a person's (or animal's) body orifice such as the vagina, anus, or mouth with a body part of another person or an object." (source:Wikipedia) Want to bring charges of non-consensual ejaculation, then the point of law will have to be something other than rape.


Edited to add: Consider this analogy. A woman invites a guy over for dinner, therefore his use of her food is consensual and not a crime. Before dinner she says that while she expects to enjoy the meal with him she doesn't want him to eat the apple pie she's saving in the kitchen. Ignoring her wish, after dinner he goes into the kitchen, helps himself to a piece, and gobbles it down.

Questions: Does his eating of the pie constitute the crime of theft? Should the act be considered such a breach of trust that the courts deserve to be involved?

I know there's a considerable difference in the possible consequences in the two cases, but the consequences of the so-called rape were never an issue, at least not according to the article.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not at all. Just pointing out the subtext the term has in common usage, which does not match up with what legal usage may be (or should be).

Though I have to say the image I think of when I consider "rape" is not what you described. *laughs* Statistically, stranger rape is extremely rare. No, I think of a woman with her boyfriend and him manipulating or aggressively forcing her into sex (whether it is oral, anal, or foreplay) even though she doesn't want to. I don't consider non-consentual ejaculation during consensual sex to be "rape," but I do think males should be held accountable for impregnating a woman against her consent.

I think because the definition of rape varies so much, it's why there is confusion on what the parameters are.

But the image I brought up is what many people have about what "rape" looks like. Actual legitimate forcible rape. We hear these descriptors to guide people into an understanding of what "rape" is....and in spite of the statistics bearing that the vast majority of rape is committed by people who know the victim, the most people agree with stranger rape.

Gang rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, date rape....has less of a consensus because most times, those who stand accused aren't "strangers" or "nameless", but that they're real men with real lives and real futures, and there exists a worry of false accusations that might ruin the lives of these men.

Obviously the statistics don't lie, but people are emotionally attached to the idea of wanting to place more trust in the man accused, especially if he's a white straight man. Queers, blacks, and women when accused of sexual assault generally don't get the same protection or assumption of innocence.

Maybe we should call it non-consentual impregnation. The sex itself is consensual, but the woman didn't consent to having a kid with the sex act.

There are a lot of men who don't consent to having a kid with the sex act either. That they're sabotaged and deceived, but that tends to happen on the sly, and not forcefully during the act itself. Non-consensual impregnation I think wouldn't fit.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Here is the law.

"England and Wales

Rape is defined as follows:

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
​

Source: Wikipedia

​

From how I read it, consent to ejaculate or not doesn't enter into the issue. Under English law rape only concerns it self with non-consensual sexual penetration, and doesn't speak to anything other than that. Sexual penetration being "the entry into a person's (or animal's) body orifice such as the vagina, anus, or mouth with a body part of another person or an object." (source:Wikipedia) Want to bring charges of non-consensual ejaculation, then the point of law will have to be something other than rape.

Can semen be considered an object in such a case?