Should a man be accused of rape even if the women agrees to sex

[Missy86]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314469/Men-convicted-rape-woman-agrees-sex.html

I know its in the daily mail but never mind

I find something really unnerving about this, are we gonna get to a point where men wont want to have sex at all incase they are labelled rapists

Was the test case rape, it was certainly abuse

 

[Piper84]

To clarify, this is about consent to penetration but not ejaculation.

Here's a BBC link if you don't fancy giving the Daily Fail your clicks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

 

[Missy86]

Thanks, is it only about ejactulation I thought it was about anything during sex
It was just the test case was about ejactulation

 

[Piper84]

It seems the woman appealed the bloke's acquittal because he got rough and aggressive during sex and then ejaculated in her when she'd asked him not to. It's a difficult one.

 

[Missy86]

Someone made a good point in the comments, if a women tricks a bloke into getting her pregnant by saying she is on bc should that now be classed as rape

 

[Missy86]

Also I think this is a slap in the face for women who have actually had men force themselves on them

 

[Noelle610]

This is interesting and I'm not sure what I think!

In many US states though, a woman (or man) may withdraw consent even if she said "yes" to intercourse previously. I do believe if a man continues to have sex with a woman after she has withdrawn her consent that it is rape.

In terms of men being scared to have sex because they fear they may be accused of rape, well, I actually don't think it's such a bad thing. We live in a culture where many men think it's fine to sleep with a woman who is unconscious, heavily intoxicated or underage and quite frankly I don't think that's okay. It's always best to err on the side of caution when being intimate.

 

[Foogirl]

I think if at any point a woman says stop and the man continues, it could/should be considered as rape. But I do think the whole circumstance should be taken into consideration in sentencing.

 

[Sarahkka]

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Fulford and Mr Justice Sweeney at a High Court hearing in London, added: "She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based.

"Accordingly her consent was negated.

"Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina.

"In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape."

I most certainly do agree with this ruling and most certainly do consider this rape. And I agree with Noelle - I have no problem with men treading with caution in this area. In fact, it is high time. If someone is so uncertain about what consensual sex is that they are "scared to sleep with a woman" for fear of being accused of rape, then they probably are not emotionally mature enough to be having sex in the first place.

 

[Missy86]

What if a couple were having sex without protection and at the last moment the women decided she wanted the guy to pull out but he didn't make it, under this ruling would that now be rape

 

[Noelle610]

What if a couple were having sex without protection and at the last moment the women decided she wanted the guy to pull out but he didn't make it, under this ruling would that now be rape

Not to be totally vile, but I don't really get it. What do you mean by "he didn't make it"? Like he tried to pull out, but "finished" before he could?

 

[Missy86]

Yes that's what I meant, I didn't want to be to graphic

 

[bumpy_j]

Well pulling out is not a sure fire way to protect yourself exactly - so no, I wouldn't class it as rape, id class it as deception. I do see it almost being the same thing as a woman lying about her birth control.

 

[bumpy_j]

By the way, it doesn't mean I don't think its despicable but I think we need to stop making rape such an enormously broad term. It's such a heinous act and I'm worried we will start trivialising it by creating new stems. I think conception deception should have its own moral category in a legal sense. The only reason I see it worse than a woman lying about birth control I guess is that she would have to go through pregnancy if the morning after pill contrasted against her personal ethics. Then again a man wouldn't be given the choice to prevent/terminate the conception. Maybe there's more to the story? I dunno, its a weird one.

 

[xemmax]

Also I think this is a slap in the face for women who have actually had men force themselves on them

I disagree; this kind of thinking implies that there is a some kind of spectrum, that some rapes are worse than others and therefore some are more permissible. Rape is rape, circumstances may differ but ultimately it is traumatic for all victims. We shouldn't consider it to have an almost 'competitive' element but should take an empathetic approach for all victims of abuse.

I guess the error here is a linguistic one. We need to establish what we consider rape.

Is rape only forced penetration?
Can you be raped without penetration?
Can you be raped with something other than a penis - an object for example?

Put crudely - would it be considered rape to have something inserted into you without permission?

That is precisely what this man did. In my eyes, this is rape.

 

[Button#]

The law says that if a person doesn't consent to a particular sexual act or practise even if they have consented to others and their partner does it against their will it is rape which I agree with. If the woman had agreed to sex but not anal sex and it was forced on her then people would be up in arms. The fact that she conceived is nothing to do with the rape allegation although obviously it is the result of it.

 

[bumpy_j]

Yes but if women can rape men, I don't think it's as simple as having something inserted in you in that sense. So therefore would a man penetrating an unprotected women not be the same thing, as he would not otherwise be undertaking sexual relations? And then if it IS the same thing, what about if a woman uses a condom to impregnate herself? The act still happened, but it is biologically not the same thing. It's an explosive label and I think we need to be careful how potentially unequal this could become.

If it's outside of the standard rape category (i.e initiating sex forcefully, without consent etc.), then I think legalities such as in this case probably need to come from the intention. I'm trying to think of another example but I can't. It's a very unique case. This is a potentially catastrophic event for someone but I still see it as deception - although if he refused to stop when she told him to by force, then I would class that as rape (which is sadly impossible to prove unless the woman in question had physical marks).

 

[xemmax]

Yes but if women can rape men, I don't think it's as simple as having something inserted in you in that sense. So therefore would a man penetrating an unprotected women not be the same thing, as he would not otherwise be undertaking sexual relations? And then if it IS the same thing, what about if a woman uses a condom to impregnate herself? The act still happened, but it is biologically not the same thing. It's an explosive label and I think we need to be careful how potentially unequal this could become.

If it's outside of the standard rape category (i.e initiating sex forcefully, without consent etc.), then I think legalities such as in this case probably need to come from the intention. I'm trying to think of another example but I can't. It's a very unique case. This is a potentially catastrophic event for someone but I still see it as deception - although if he refused to stop when she told him to by force, then I would class that as rape (which is sadly impossible to prove unless the woman in question had physical marks).

That's really what I was trying to say though, that rape is commonly assumed to be forced penetration but actually rape can include many different acts. What I was trying to say was that if you consider an insertion of something against your will to be rape (which is the common perception of rape) then this would fit well within that description. I'm definitely not saying rape is defined by one particular act.

With regards to the similar situation with men, by the definition that the judge gave (as the conditions given by the woman on her consent being broken, therefore her consent being void) then yes, roles reversed, it would be rape. I agree with what you said before about a conception deception clause. I'm not sure at which point we can say when being deceived into sex becomes rape, but in this case, which like you say is very unique, I definitely consider it to be rape. About the condom thing though - I don't think that's the same thing at all as the woman would be acting after the act, it's more like theft (of the gravest kind).

 

[bumpy_j]

I definitely do agree with you that it's more like theft. Another thing that would be impossible to prove (I saw one of the comments was from a man who said he had to pay 18 years worth of CSA for that exact thing which was thoroughly depressing). What a sad circumstance to bring a child into across the board. I wonder what the conclusion of this case will be...

 

[xemmax]

I definitely do agree with you that it's more like theft. Another thing that would be impossible to prove (I saw one of the comments was from a man who said he had to pay 18 years worth of CSA for that exact thing which was thoroughly depressing). What a sad circumstance to bring a child into across the board. I wonder what the conclusion of this case will be...

There aren't words to describe women who have purposefully deceived men to get pregnant, it is so cruel and unbelievably selfish. Of all the things you could possibly 'steal' from someone, I can't think of much worse when you do that you basically dictate their fate, it's just awful.