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

[MysticSang'ha]

Non-consensual impregnation. She never said he couldn't ejaculate, just not in such a way to increase her risk of pregnancy.

It's a crap method of birth control, but it was the method they agreed on.

This is a case that certainly brings to light important consent issues. I know I keep saying this, but it's so important to discuss this with our legislators, educators, parents, teens, law enforcement, and justice systems to determine what is criminal assault on another person's bodily security and autonomy. And what is consensual sex.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

If I allow you to touch my face, I feel like I should still be able to press charges if you do something I'm not necessarily consenting to such as slapping me. Internal ejaculation is as much of a violation, even if the penetration is consentual. Consentual penetration doesn't necessarily equate to consentual internal ejaculation, especially if a "pulling out" method is agreed upon, and especially if a man indicates when it's too late that he has no intention of honoring the agreement.

Of course, it does depend on how clear it was on her part to communicate that she didn't want him to do so in a way that could cause her pregnancy. It goes without saying that she was practicing a pretty dumb "method" of birth control, but that doesn't excuse the man's alleged violation of what she *actually* permitted, let alone her trust.

 

[dust1n]

Nice, but you forgot to credit your source (kind of amounts to plagiarism when you don't. )

If you are referring to a text that has already been referenced, there is no need to credit the source again. It's kinda assumed everyone's referring to the same law.

 

[dawny0826]

Non-consensual impregnation. She never said he couldn't ejaculate, just not in such a way to increase her risk of pregnancy.

It's a crap method of birth control, but it was the method they agreed on.

Further, if you read the article, Skwim, the concern was with the agressive and forcible manner in which he continued to move forward. She reiterated her stance. He continued and refused to pull out.

 

[Alceste]

This is a case that certainly brings to light important consent issues. I know I keep saying this, but it's so important to discuss this with our legislators, educators, parents, teens, law enforcement, and justice systems to determine what is criminal assault on another person's bodily security and autonomy. And what is consensual sex.

Exactly. That's why I think this is a positive development even if it doesn't result in a conviction. It's in the news, we're reading it, we're talking about it, we're contemplating the concept of sexual boundaries and how to be a decent partner, and we're (hopefully) all learning something from the conversation.

In all honesty, I don't think this particular guy should face jail time, although I do believe his actions (as described) were clearly sexual assault. Being accused of rape, having to shell out for a defense attorney, go to court, be stigmatized as a rapist, etc. is already a satisfying deterrent and consequence against his behavior and poor decision making as far as I am concerned. I expect a conviction would not only be impossible, but overkill. It's still satisfying that the court recognizes the described encounter is criminal, even though it could likely not be successfully prosecuted.

 

[Skwim]

Non-consensual impregnation. She never said he couldn't ejaculate, just not in such a way to increase her risk of pregnancy.

Hmm. I thought that was a given, and didn't need to be qualified.

If you are referring to a text that has already been referenced, there is no need to credit the source again. It's kinda assumed everyone's referring to the same law.

But it wasn't the same text from the same page as oldbadger implied. And not appearing on the page I quoted from, I assumed he was using another source. That this wasn't a big deal is why I said, "kind of amounts to plagiarism when you don't. " More of a friendly jab than anything else.

Further, if you read the article, Skwim, the concern was with the agressive and forcible manner in which he continued to move forward. She reiterated her stance. He continued and refused to pull out.

Well, at least one of the factors. But why do you address this to me? Is there something I've said that suggest that I think this is inconsequential? All I've really addressed is the appropriateness of charging him with rape under English law.

 

[Alceste]

Hmm. I thought that was a given, and didn't need to be qualified.

Apparently not. It's come up more than once.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Apparently not. It's come up more than once.

Yes, for the reason that some folks here are under the assumption that genital penetration automatically assumes male ejaculation. It's important to continually make the distinction that penetration and ejaculation are two completely separate and unrelated events.

 

[Skwim]

Apparently not. It's come up more than once.

I haven't read all the posts so you may well be right, but I wouldn't have thought anyone here considered that the issue of inappropriate ejaculation in the case included ejaculation outside of her vagina.

 

[dawny0826]

Well, at least one of the factors. But why do you address this to me? Is there something I've said that suggest that I think this is inconsequential? All I've really addressed is the appropriateness of charging him with rape under English law.

Because I meant for it to be directed at you. I don't fully understand why you'd question the appropriateness of charging him with rape. When she told him to remove his penis from her vagina because she did not want him to ejaculate and he refused to remove said penis from said vagina and continued, consent at that point is in question. Continued penetration had to occur in order for him to ejaculate. Penetration at that point was unwanted.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"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?

She can say stop! The man should stop, but if his gun goes off may or may not be an option for him.

Sexual freedom? Yeah, you can say stop and not allow him to have sex with you any further. Men are not machines, they get caught up in the moment and their brain may not be working. You cannot stop on a dime every time and expecting that much control of the situation is unreasonable.

How quick is quick enough to stop? one second, five seconds, ten seconds? What if your misunderstood? You might need to tell someone twice before they actually are aware they are doing something against your will.

Lets reverse this, what if a man says get off me? How long do you have before your raping the man? Make sure your watching closely, you may need to hop off me at any second!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

She can say stop! The man should stop, but if his gun goes off may or may not be an option for him.

Sexual freedom? Yeah, you can say stop and not allow him to have sex with you any further. Men are not machines, they get caught up in the moment and their brain may not be working. You cannot stop on a dime every time and expecting that much control of the situation is unreasonable.

How quick is quick enough to stop? one second, five seconds, ten seconds? What if your misunderstood? You might need to tell someone twice before they actually are aware they are doing something against your will.

Lets reverse this, what if a man says get off me? How long do you have before your raping the man? Make sure your watching closely, you may need to hop off me at any second!

What are your thoughts on the case linked in the OP?

 

[Levite]

I agree that since consent was given with a single, explicit condition, and that condition was verbally and clearly rejected once intercourse was taking place, it does technically qualify for a rape charge. But while I definitely agree that statutes for rape should be broadly inclusive on the side of caution, to ensure that there is as little risk as possible of women being deprived not only of safety but justice, I also think that there does need to be some discussion here of the choices that certain women make. As far as I can see, in 95% or better-- maybe 99% even-- of rape cases, the idea that the victim bears any responsibility, or led the rapist on, or any sort of crap like that is just that-- crap. But there are a few mighty poor choices that are made out there; and I'm not suggesting that we alter laws or not prosecute rapists because of that. But there does need to be discussion.

There has been a lot of education in America and Europe over the past couple of decades to reinforce on men the idea that "no means no," and that they must get clear consent from a woman, and so it should be-- indeed, given some disturbing recent events, clearly much more education is needed, and it should be given, vigorously. But I think there needs to be some education given to girls and young women, too, about being sensible in their sexual choices.

Presuming that, for whatever reason, the woman in this case did not want to take the Day After pill, and was not on any other birth control, why would she not insist that a bed partner wear a condom? And why would she not refuse to have sex unless he wore one? Why demand that he withdraw, instead, and what is more, given how apparently urgent it was for her not to become pregnant, why would she trust that he would do so? What I mean by that is, a guy who would deliberately and knowingly agree to have sex on condition of withdrawal, yet not volunteer to wear a condom or provide some other birth control, and then ejaculate inside the woman on purpose, verbally telling her what he was about to do, is not a decent guy. He is the sort of guy who will have shown himself to be, if you'll pardon the irony, a d***, probably well before they ever got to the bedroom. And yet, she had sex with him anyhow.

I don't disagree that the male in questioned should be liable under the law, but I also think that, from a non-legal perspective, she bears a certain amount of responsibility for the situation she found herself in.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

You look parched. Here, have a nice, ice cold glass of orange juice. That's right, guzzle that refreshing beverage. I bet that hit the spot, didn't it? But surprise, that was actually poison. Hey, your fault for trusting me. My hands are clean.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What are your thoughts on the case linked in the OP?

The guy was a dick and she was an idiot. In a weird way, they almost deserve one another. It's nothing but a classic case of he said she said and I would throw this out of court but make the guy pay the maximum child support possible.

 

[dust1n]

But it wasn't the same text from the same page as oldbadger implied. And not appearing on the page I quoted from, I assumed he was using another source. That this wasn't a big deal is why I said, "kind of amounts to plagiarism when you don't. " More of a friendly jab than anything else.
.

Likewise. It would be different if he was incorrect, but since all internet sources are secondary sources to the law itself, it doesn't matter. Everyone in the sources are referencing to text... though I agree, it was incorrect to assume that you were leaving something out if the source itself left something out.

 

[Skwim]

I'm changing my position


Since reading the information below I believe the defendants actions did amount to rape.

"According to Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2033 [United Kingdom].

76 Conclusive presumptions about consent

(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed—

(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
​

(2)The circumstances are that—

(a)the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
(b)the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.
​

source
​

So, considering that consent does not arise if its gained through deception, and that English law says rape occurs if

A person . . .

(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.
​

The defendant does appear guilty of rape.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree that since consent was given with a single, explicit condition, and that condition was verbally and clearly rejected once intercourse was taking place, it does technically qualify for a rape charge. But while I definitely agree that statutes for rape should be broadly inclusive on the side of caution, to ensure that there is as little risk as possible of women being deprived not only of safety but justice, I also think that there does need to be some discussion here of the choices that certain women make. As far as I can see, in 95% or better-- maybe 99% even-- of rape cases, the idea that the victim bears any responsibility, or led the rapist on, or any sort of crap like that is just that-- crap. But there are a few mighty poor choices that are made out there; and I'm not suggesting that we alter laws or not prosecute rapists because of that. But there does need to be discussion.

There has been a lot of education in America and Europe over the past couple of decades to reinforce on men the idea that "no means no," and that they must get clear consent from a woman, and so it should be-- indeed, given some disturbing recent events, clearly much more education is needed, and it should be given, vigorously. But I think there needs to be some education given to girls and young women, too, about being sensible in their sexual choices.

Presuming that, for whatever reason, the woman in this case did not want to take the Day After pill, and was not on any other birth control, why would she not insist that a bed partner wear a condom? And why would she not refuse to have sex unless he wore one? Why demand that he withdraw, instead, and what is more, given how apparently urgent it was for her not to become pregnant, why would she trust that he would do so? What I mean by that is, a guy who would deliberately and knowingly agree to have sex on condition of withdrawal, yet not volunteer to wear a condom or provide some other birth control, and then ejaculate inside the woman on purpose, verbally telling her what he was about to do, is not a decent guy. He is the sort of guy who will have shown himself to be, if you'll pardon the irony, a d***, probably well before they ever got to the bedroom. And yet, she had sex with him anyhow.

I don't disagree that the male in questioned should be liable under the law, but I also think that, from a non-legal perspective, she bears a certain amount of responsibility for the situation she found herself in.

The guy was a dick and she was an idiot. In a weird way, they almost deserve one another. It's nothing but a classic case of he said she said and I would throw this out of court but make the guy pay the maximum child support possible.

Some points made to consider regarding forethought by both partners into being educated in contraceptive methods and items. Regardless of how much forethought was put in to a sexual situation, and since both of you agree that the guy was being a **** (interesting you both used that term lol)....is there a case of acting without consent?

Let's try some other common phrases to further my argument:
She asked for it.
Look at what she was wearing.
She should have screamed more.
Why did she walk down that alley in the first place?

If the argument is to bear more responsibility on her, there is an implication that she was not victimized, and that consent is agreed all around. However, if there is an agreement that he forced himself and his intentions to ejaculate inside of her without her consent....which she repeatedly communicated to him.....and the agreement is that he willfully penetrated her against her will and was non-consensual, then suggesting that she bears some responsibility sounds rather like other typical victim-blaming declarations.

Let me be clear on the issue of rape in case I haven't made it abundantly clear before: Women can rape men, too. This isn't a one-sided issue where males are the only ones who need to pay attention to their partner and honor their partner's personal boundaries. But honoring your partner's boundaries is critical to respect and to consent.

I guess overall what I'm asking is: should we as a society allow a man such as in this case to continue forcing internal ejaculation? Is forced internal ejaculation.....when a woman has repeatedly said NO to internal ejaculation....legal? Is this simply a character flaw? Or can this behavior be considered a criminal act?

 

[ChristineES]

This certainly helps to explain why there are so many "accidental" pregnancies.

I might conceived at least one of my children when my husband "pulled out". :foot::foot:

 

[Me Myself]

What about the reverse scenario?

Some time ago I was hearing some women talk on sometng that itched me the really wrong way.

They were talking about a couple were the woman wanted kids and the husband didnt. One of them said that "honestly" if she "really" wanted kids, it was easy: she just had to decieve him about having taken the pill or put holes on the condom, and buala.

So, the exact same situation but reverse: the woman decieves the man about the purpose and circumstances of the sexual encounter, making him ejaculate in her when he distinctly doesnt want to do that and agreed to not do that, or impregnate her against their specific agreement.

Rape?