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

[Me Myself]

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

Onanism is not the greatest form of control. Condoms trump everything but ( succesful) abstinence.

Sperm may leak out even without the full blown ejaculation, in the preliminary fluids coming out of the penis.

 

[Me Myself]

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?

I agree with their points. From a legal perspective, the man is at fault, for he purposefully went against her will.

From a non legal one, the woman does have some responsibility even though she was the victim, the same way I would be both partly responsible and a victim if I go to an unsafe part of my city full of rolexes and bling blings.

Notice: I am not saying something she might wear would make her responsible, but I am saying she is getting into higher risk when having sex with strangers (the same way a man does btw) and further, when having sex without condom, thing that in itself is highly questionable when it comes to responsibility.

So to re afirm what I put clear in the begining: from the non legal perspective, its not about "fault", it is about responsibility, and, from the legal perspective, the man is still completely at fault and the woman not at fault at all.

 

[ChristineES]

Really, I don't see ejaculation as rape. He broke his word, yes. But she ought to have known that once men reach a certain point, it can be pretty hard to stop. Some men ejaculate prematurely, too.

Edited to add: No, she was not totally at fault. I didn't mean to imply that.

 

[Levite]

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?

I already indicated that I agreed that in this instance, there was a supportable case to be made that rape laws had been broken, and the offender should be prosecuted. And I also pointed out that I was not interested in narrowing rape laws or curtailing prosecutions in general.

I was quite specific that my comments were not about the legal case, but about the meta-issues surrounding it.

In other words, yes, the situation as it was having occurred, she had every right to have him arrested on rape charges, and to expect he be successfully prosecuted. However, that fact does not change my firm opinion that she should never have gotten into that situation at all. And while we can certainly say that the "fault" for any rape-- this one included-- is solely at the hands of the rapist, IMO, it is still fair to say that this woman, and those few women out there like her, may not bear direct fault, but they do bear some responsibility for making unbelievably poor choices. Again, nothing to do with laws or court cases, per se: purely to do with the need for people to have common sense, basic intelligence about judging other people, and some forethought and caution about who they are going to take into their bed, and in what circumstances.

I am by no means hauling out the old arguments that a woman who, say, walks down a dark street in a provocative dress deserves to be raped. No one ever deserves to be raped, and a person should be able to wear whatever they like.

But we're not talking about someone being attacked in an alleyway, or raped after a party, in some situation where they never expected sexual contact at all, and decisively said no to it, and had they been given a choice, would never have willingly slept with the perpetrator.

We're talking about a woman who willingly invited a certain man to have sex with her. Either she was friendly/well-acquainted with him, or he was a stranger: the article does not say. If he was a stranger, there's a problem right away: I'm not talking about moral judgments, but simple safety. If a person is a stranger, by definition, you don't know them well enough to trust them. If she was friendly or well-acquainted with him, it is quite likely that she should've known him well enough not to trust him-- since, in general, dicks will act dickishly right from the get-go. It seems extremely unlikely to me that a guy who is enough of a dick to do what he did either would be capable of or would be inclined to successfully masquerade as a decent, caring guy right up until the moment he had penetrated her.

The fact that she behaved unutterably stupidly doesn't negate the fact that he did violate her under the laws of Britain, and should be legally held accountable for it. But it also isn't meaningless.

If I ask someone to shoot an apple I am holding, and the bullet ends up in me, the shooter is still liable for manslaughter if I die, reckless endangerment, and/or assault with a deadly weapon if I don't: and they should be prosecuted as such, and convicted. But the fact that they broke a law and should be held legally accountable for doing so does not negate the extra-legal fact that, in asking someone to shoot an apple I am holding, I am being needlessly and superlatively stupid, and I should've known better.

And again I say, if not being pregnant is of such dire importance to a woman, why is she having unprotected sex, much less trusting someone untrustworthy to pull out in time? Granted, the man should also be criticized for not insisting on birth control, but had he not done what he did, but instead, failed at a good-faith effort to pull out before ejaculating, she would be just as pregnant, just as unhappy about it, and it would have been just as preventable.

 

[Me Myself]

Really, I don't see ejaculation as rape. He broke his word, yes. But she ought to have known that once men reach a certain point, it can be pretty hard to stop. Some men ejaculate prematurely, too.

We are not talking about accidental ejaculation, we are talking about deliberate ejaculation, when the agreement was otherwise.

Ejaculating would be a sexual advance that was previously stated as (clearly) undesirable.

T the very least it would be sexual assault, and much graver than other forms of sexual assault, maybe even graver than some forms of rape in the department that he may impregnate her against her will( which .i understand happened in this case?) and by doing so, he forced her to either have a child or kill it.

 

[Renji]

We are not talking about accidental ejaculation, we are talking about deliberate ejaculation, when the agreement was otherwise.

Ejaculating would be a sexual advance that was previously stated as (clearly) undesirable.

Oh, so legally speaking when I masturbate and I said to myself that I won't ejaculate, but then I just did, my whole country can sue a rape case on me or I can even sue myself.... for raping myself.

T the very least it would be sexual assault, and much graver than other forms of sexual assault, maybe even graver than some forms of rape in the department that he may impregnate her against her will( which .i understand happened in this case?) and by doing so, he forced her to either have a child or kill it.

If you, say agree to have sex with someone, aren't you expecting that there will be some sort of fluid secretion (is there such thing as 'dry sex' or 'non-ejaculative' sex?) between you and your partner that can, eventually result to pregnancy when your egg and her sperm (lol) unite? So say, the guy used condom because 'she' doesn't want to be pregnant, and eventually she still become pregnant, can 'she' sue 'he' of rape because 'he' impregnated her?

 

[Alceste]

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?

I think it's a very similar scenario. If she were to declare mid-coitus that she lied about the pill and keep having sex with him as he protested, culminating in a pregnancy, it would be exactly the same. (edit, well not exactly, since the pregnancy is still in her body rather than his, but very similar).

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, so legally speaking when I masturbate and I said to myself that I won't ejaculate, but then I just did, my whole country can sue a rape case on me or I can even sue myself.... for raping myself.



If you, say agree to have sex with someone, aren't you expecting that there will be some sort of fluid secretion (is there such thing as 'dry sex' or 'non-ejaculative' sex?) between you and your partner that can, eventually result to pregnancy when your egg and her sperm (lol) unite? So say, the guy used condom because 'she' doesn't want to be pregnant, and eventually she still become pregnant, can 'she' sue 'he' of rape because 'he' impregnated her?

Only if he deliberately used an ineffective condom, one which he put holes on or similar.

About raping yourself, I personally wouldnt find that to be possible, unless a very weird and severe case of double personality

 

[Me Myself]

I think it's a very similar scenario. If she were to declare mid-coitus that she lied about the pill and keep having sex with him as he protested, culminating in a pregnancy, it would be exactly the same. (edit, well not exactly, since the pregnancy is still in her body rather than his, but very similar).

Yeah, well it sounds as similar as it gets when e rape is woman on man.

The difference is who is doing the penetrating and who is doing the "embracing" , but as long as non consensual, still rape.

 

[oldbadger]

I did.

My source. You do know, don't you, that sources can vary.

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

In any case, what is that you see in your expanded definition that affects the point at issue: non-consensual ejaculation?

Hello....
I'm late to reply 'cos of time zones.

No! Anybody is allowed to quote English(Welsh) Law by heart. No plagiarism, Skwim. But it is important to quote it 'right'. The loss of a word or even a punctuation can make a big difference.

I'll bow to criticism if it's wrong, or out of date. Will even run up and down the road in my undies if I'm wrong.

Actually, I don't think I would. (run about in my undies) This morning the news reports that a huge shake-up of our specialised 'rape' and 'sexual offence' units is happening, with increases in unit strengths, and a total revision of the way that we respond to, investigate, enforce and judge incidents.

Something big has started to move here...... at last. In nine months I have not read any RF member saying that their country's responses to sexual offence allegations are adequate, and so any movement forwards by any country is good.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

I know it was only a friendly jab....... Cool.

But English(Welsh) legislation can be quoted, printed, scribbled anywhere by anyone at any time. As long as its correct, the idea of plagiarism is utterly defunct. Our laws were written to be spread far and wide; in fact, ignorance of a particular law is no defence here.

You asked 'how does the addition make a difference?' Look, I don't know, Skwim; this is going to be a very complex case. My point from the beginning has been that the Judges were right to ensure that this case is 'Tried'.

The Crown Prosecution Service was wrong to stuff it away on a shelf. DEad wrong. At the moment, that's my point. This defendant may be acquitted, may be convicted, who knows?

 

[oldbadger]

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.

I've just arrived at this post.

Excellent! There you go....... You've done what I should have done, accessed those sections and put 'em up for all to see, as well.

Bloody good post.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sperm may leak out even without the full blown ejaculation, in the preliminary fluids coming out of the penis.

Pre-ejaculate does not contain any viable sperm.

 

[Me Myself]

Pre-ejaculate does not contain any viable sperm.

It shouldnt, but it can.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Pre-ejaculate does not contain any viable sperm.

Some research indicates that at times pre-ejaculate can contain viable sperm. The conducted testing in various times and groups on it have been inconclusive however.

 

[dust1n]

For the record... if I was having sex with the assumption that I was going to pull out, and the female agreed, but when the time came and I announced the moment, yet she refused to get off of me or was able to successfully do so until ejaculation, I would feel entirely betrayed and would possibly seek legal reconciliation if anything resulted of it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For the record... if I was having sex with the assumption that I was going to pull out, and the female agreed, but when the time came and I announced the moment, yet she refused to get off of me or was able to successfully do so until ejaculation, I would feel entirely betrayed and would possibly seek legal reconciliation if anything resulted of it.

As you should. Or that the agreement was that if you were bound and unable to maneuver, and if the agreement was that withdrawal was the method of choice for contraception, in spite of the fact that penetration was consensual....if she refused to withdraw before ejaculation willingly, and told you repeatedly that she was going to make sure you ejaculated inside of her in spite of your insistence not to, that is what I would consider non-consensual ejaculation where SHE is the perpetrator. And should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Me Myself]

As you should. Or that the agreement was that if you were bound and unable to maneuver, and if the agreement was that withdrawal was the method of choice for contraception, in spite of the fact that penetration was consensual....if she refused to withdraw before ejaculation willingly, and told you repeatedly that she was going to make sure you ejaculated inside of her in spite of your insistence not to, that is what I would consider non-consensual ejaculation where SHE is the perpetrator. And should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

For tape.

 

[Alceste]

For tape.

I would prefer the term sexual assault in both cases. The word rape confuses people.

 

[Wirey]

Some research indicates that at times pre-ejaculate can contain viable sperm. The conducted testing in various times and groups on it have been inconclusive however.

I'm getting a magnifying glass and some Kleenex right now. I'll let you know what I find out.