-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Consensual sex could still be rape rules a UK high court-unbelievable
- Thread starter sunni56
- Start date
Me Myself
Back to my username
It wouldnt matter. As there is semen in the inner shaft of the penis, there would still be semen inside her vagina even if he didnt ejaculate it. (It would be inside the vagina inside the penis)
The reason I may agree to it being raped is that he purposefully violated the agreed conditions of the consent.
As long as he admits to this or is somehow other form of evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that he did so intentionally, I would say it is rape.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Alceste
Vagabond
How about this: sunni56 meets a beautiful woman and takes her home. He consents to sex. They get down to it. The chick turns out to be a pre-op MTF, complete with a penis and testicles. She's also stronger than him so she rides him like a prize bull while he cries and complains about it.
His own fault, right?
His own fault, right?
None of this is making sense to me. Why would a woman tell a man it's OK to have sex with her but he can't ejaculate? I am hearing this correctly? If it is, it's semantics- don't sex and orgasm go hand in hand?
I think I should read the article and read it thoroughly because something doesn't sound right here.
I think I should read the article and read it thoroughly because something doesn't sound right here.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I am amused by it. So I will give my 2 cents. They are both in the wrong- the first person for picking up someone without having enough knowledge about her/him in the first place (even if someone is not monogamous, they should at least know some things about person before they sleep together, right?) and the first person for not saying anything. But the complaints trump each other out and there would never be a case.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Not at all.
I ve had sex without ejaculation more than once, I ve find it very enjoyable.
Sex and orgasm also dont necessarily go hand in hand. Me personally I enjoy the whole process and to make it long and pleasurable. The "big end" its waaaaaaay not as important as the whole game
Not at all.
I ve had sex without ejaculation more than once, I ve find it very enjoyable.
Sex and orgasm also dont necessarily go hand in hand. Me personally I enjoy the whole process and to make it long and pleasurable. The "big end" its waaaaaaay not as important as the whole game
I never have orgasm with sex- but I am a female. My husband almost always orgasms.
I kind of envy ladies who orgasm with sex. I don't know if the fault is mine or my husband's.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I never have orgasm with sex- but I am a female. My husband almost always orgasms.
Fault is unimportant. Mos important is you have fun anyways.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Good question. In as much as the definition specifically mentions "person" and then goes on to mention something else, an "object" in this case, I would say that the "object" is not of the person.
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
I never have orgasm with sex- but I am a female. My husband almost always orgasms.
Generally it's no ones fault, most women can't orgasm through intercourse alone. There are other ways...
Alceste
Vagabond
She did not consent to him ejaculating in her vaginal canal. She wanted him to "pull out" and told him that was a condition of her consent. I'm not saying that's an awesome form of birth control, but it was apparently an intentional and aggressive violation of the terms of her consent.
Alceste
Vagabond
I never have orgasm with sex- but I am a female. My husband almost always orgasms.
I don't usually orgasm from sex alone either. I used to feel weird about it, but now I just insist on going first.
If you make that a condition of your consent, perhaps your husband would be on board with figuring out how help you make that happen.
A man does not necessarily ejaculate just because there is vaginal penetration. It is not automatic. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the medical issue of "erectile dysfunction", or premature ejaculation before any penetration, or simply orgasm without any ejaculate present.
And yes, it is perfectly within a woman's right to accept penetration and to say no to ejaculation.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
This certainly helps to explain why there are so many "accidental" pregnancies.
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
I don't usually orgasm from sex alone either. I used to feel weird about it, but now I just insist on going first.
Or be in a position where you can masturbate during intercourse
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
If you're going to print it, for goodness sake print it all:-
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.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Different?
Much different?
Amazingly different. Time to start over again...............
Our Judges are not idiots.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Thats funny, but at the same time sadly true n_nU
Skwim
Veteran Member
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?
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
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?
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.