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

[dust1n]

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.

I mean, it just makes sense. I don't know if I'd call it rape or not, and I don't really care. It's obvious to me that it is incredibly wrong to go back on one's word about the subject of where we are engaging in the one element of sex that might potentially create a baby. The only term I can think of is.... sociopathic?

 

[Wirey]

I mean, it just makes sense. I don't know if I'd call it rape or not, and I don't really care. It's obvious to me that it is incredibly wrong to go back on one's word about the subject of where we are engaging in the one element of sex that might potentially create a baby. The only term I can think of is.... sociopathic?

What? Go back on one's word?

When you're scrote deep in someone, biological imperatives can jump out. You are designed to reproduce (maybe not you specifically until after the back-wax thing, but most of us), and when that moment arrives, I'd argue that it would be pretty distracting, prior agreement or not. On the other hand, if a woman is dumb enough to fall for "I swear, I'll only put the tip in for a minute," then maybe we should pass a law getting her a discount tubal ligation.

 

[Alceste]

What? Go back on one's word?

When you're scrote deep in someone, biological imperatives can jump out. You are designed to reproduce (maybe not you specifically until after the back-wax thing, but most of us), and when that moment arrives, I'd argue that it would be pretty distracting, prior agreement or not. On the other hand, if a woman is dumb enough to fall for "I swear, I'll only put the tip in for a minute," then maybe we should pass a law getting her a discount tubal ligation.

That makes no sense. If a man can't control himself, or lies about his intentions, obviously he should be forced to have a vasectomy instead. Do we really want to start penalizing people for trusting that their sexual boundaries will be respected? If we did that, would anybody ever get laid?

 

[Alceste]

I mean, it just makes sense. I don't know if I'd call it rape or not, and I don't really care. It's obvious to me that it is incredibly wrong to go back on one's word about the subject of where we are engaging in the one element of sex that might potentially create a baby. The only term I can think of is.... sociopathic?

That's why I prefer the term sexual assault. Discussions of what can or can't be defined as rape usually obscure the pertinent question of sexual ethics in these threads.

 

[Wirey]

That makes no sense. If a man can't control himself, or lies about his intentions, obviously he should be forced to have a vasectomy instead. Do we really want to start penalizing people for trusting that their sexual boundaries will be respected? If we did that, would anybody ever get laid?

My point is that, when the Big Moment arrives, accidents happen. Hell, the guy may have had every intention of pulling out and ruining a perfectly good sofa. But it takes two to tango, and they are going to put themselves in a situation like that to save the cost of a condom (which I believe are free from just about any family planning center), tough.

 

[Alceste]

My point is that, when the Big Moment arrives, accidents happen. Hell, the guy may have had every intention of pulling out and ruining a perfectly good sofa. But it takes two to tango, and they are going to put themselves in a situation like that to save the cost of a condom (which I believe are free from just about any family planning center), tough.

The guy allegedly said "I'm going to come inside you and there's nothing you can do about it" and aggressively finished himself off as she protested.

Does that sound like an accident to you?

 

[Sunstone]

I mean, it just makes sense. I don't know if I'd call it rape or not, and I don't really care. It's obvious to me that it is incredibly wrong to go back on one's word about the subject of where we are engaging in the one element of sex that might potentially create a baby. The only term I can think of is.... sociopathic?

The trouble seems to me in telling the difference between an honest mistake and an intentional act. Just how can a court do that?

 

[Me Myself]

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

There are pros and cons of using that term.

In any case, I find it to be one of the worst things you can do.

Forcing a man to be a father against this will, is around forcing a woman to be a mother against her will. 9 months in difference and all, there is a new life you never planed for in place, you have a child, a new human being coming from you.

The purposeful impregnation is in some ways way worst than rape in my mind, in the sense it... Well its so hard to explain.

Under US law she can even then kill his son if she wants. Its truly hell.

 

[Wirey]

The guy allegedly said "I'm going to come inside you and there's nothing you can do about it" and aggressively finished himself off as she protested.

Does that sound like an accident to you?

Yup. Of course not! Did she just meet the guy? If she did, what the Hell is she doing going bareback riding? If she didn't, she should have known he was a pecker. We're usually pretty obvious. I'm not saying what he did was right. It's not. I'm saying she has an exactly equal share of the blame. If you go out for drinks with someone you know is carrying roofies and is a dick, are you behaving responsibly?

 

[Alceste]

There are pros and cons of using that term.

In any case, I find it to be one of the worst things you can do.

Forcing a man to be a father against this will, is around forcing a woman to be a mother against her will. 9 months in difference and all, there is a new life you never planed for in place, you have a child, a new human being coming from you.

The purposeful impregnation is in some ways way worst than rape in my mind, in the sense it... Well its so hard to explain.

Under US law she can even then kill his son if she wants. Its truly hell.

That's not hell. It's only fair. If she did not consent to sex or pregnancy, she should not be forced to have a child. The discomfort, pain and trauma of a rape is nothing compared to that of squeezing a football out of your vagina.

 

[dust1n]

What? Go back on one's word?

When you're scrote deep in someone, biological imperatives can jump out. You are designed to reproduce (maybe not you specifically until after the back-wax thing, but most of us), and when that moment arrives, I'd argue that it would be pretty distracting, prior agreement or not. On the other hand, if a woman is dumb enough to fall for "I swear, I'll only put the tip in for a minute," then maybe we should pass a law getting her a discount tubal ligation.

Out of the thousands of sexual experiences I've had to this point, not one time have I ever ejaculated into a vagina. So, I'm not particularly concerned with myself. And whether a woman's biological imperative jumps out and supersedes a conscious agreement made prior to the moment I'm at, and I'm specifically saying, no, this is not okay, and doing all I can to avoid such an event, is really only my problem to the extent a crime has been committed against me, and I should be held liable for a child that I explicitly wanted to part in and was forced upon me against my will knowingly by another person.

 

[dust1n]

The trouble seems to me in telling the difference between an honest mistake and an intentional act. Just how can a court do that?

Writing, if I was really concerned this extremely rare thing potentially happening to me.

 

[Alceste]

Yup. Of course not! Did she just meet the guy? If she did, what the Hell is she doing going bareback riding? If she didn't, she should have known he was a pecker. We're usually pretty obvious. I'm not saying what he did was right. It's not. I'm saying she has an exactly equal share of the blame. If you go out for drinks with someone you know is carrying roofies and is a dick, are you behaving responsibly?

We're not mind readers.

 

[Me Myself]

That's not hell. It's only fair. If she did not consent to sex or pregnancy, she should not be forced to have a child. The discomfort, pain and trauma of a rape is nothing compared to that of squeezing a football out of your vagina.

Having someone lawfully kill your child after she tricked you to bear said child sounds as helish as it gets, honestly.

 

[Me Myself]

The trouble seems to me in telling the difference between an honest mistake and an intentional act. Just how can a court do that?

Unfortunately. In this cases the perpetrator is extremely likely to get away with it, unless s/he is stupid enough to say what the guy said in court, or someone has a naughty vid of the happenings

 

[Sunstone]

Having someone lawfully kill your child after she tricked you to bear said child sounds as helish as it gets, honestly.

Not to me. Being forced to bear a child you do not want sounds a bit more hellish to me.

 

[Me Myself]

We're not mind readers.

I wouldnt say equal blame, and legally speaking, she has no responsibility and should have all the law on her side.

Like, if I go to the ugly part pf my city covered in gold and diamonds and bling blings, law should be totally on my side if I get robbed.

if I leave the door of my house open, the law should be totally on my side if anyone steals from me.

if I let a stranger come into my house while I show him and let him hold my gun, law should be totally in my side if he puts bullets on my robs me and rapes my family.

Non legally speaking though, I obviously decided to partake on the risks of each scenario.

 

[Me Myself]

Not to me. Being forced to bear a child you do not want sounds a bit more hellish to me.

Sure, "hell" is subjective

 

[Alceste]

Not to me. Being forced to bear a child you do not want sounds a bit more hellish to me.

MM has a persistent habit of completely disregarding all the biological and psychological risks and impacts of pregnancy and childbirth.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yup. Of course not! Did she just meet the guy? If she did, what the Hell is she doing going bareback riding? If she didn't, she should have known he was a pecker. We're usually pretty obvious. I'm not saying what he did was right. It's not. I'm saying she has an exactly equal share of the blame. If you go out for drinks with someone you know is carrying roofies and is a dick, are you behaving responsibly?

If what he did was wrong, he is culpable for his actions. She does not bear responsibility for his actions. She also does not bear responsibility for being a victim of his actions.

If you go out for drinks with someone you DON'T know is carrying roofies and DON'T know is a dick, and then trust that guy to respect your boundaries and doesn't....are you responsible when he surprises you when he assaults you?

This victim-blaming continues to be truly despressing.