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

[Sarahkka]

Excellent points brought up.
I believe the particular case discussed is very much about intention, as xemmax stated. The context described, in which the forceful and belligerent refusal of the man to act according to the original terms of sexual consent thereby negated the consent, is quite clear as to intention to deceive.
In the situation of a male not having the control to adhere to the conditions of consent, I think the context would probably leave such an individual fair grounds for defense. He did not intentionally violate the terms; therefore, he would have a much better chance of being cleared of such a charge.
Do I think a world in which men need to consider this possibility before engaging in sex will somehow oppress them? Somehow infringe on their rights and freedoms? Should I be feeling pity for these poor guys who just wanted a fun night and are now facing serious criminal charges? Not a chance. It is statistically rare for a woman to "win" a rape case. (I say "win" because typically the psychological and social hell she gets to endure before anything goes to trial are reported to be almost as bad as the violation itself - sadly, too many examples to choose from here. Off the top of my head, I can think of two teens in Canada who committed suicide over their rapes this year alone.) If our most conservative figures are correct, less than a third of rapes are even reported. If men need to experience some fear around understanding what consent is, I am A-OK with that. Maybe that is just what we need to start breaking down our global rape culture.
I also believe that men (and boys) who are raped need to be given far more support than is currently given. There are a handful of very brave men who have come forward with their stories. Who even knows how many more suffer in silence? It is pretty grim to think about.
And I agree that conception deception is a sexual violation, but I think it warrants its own set of laws. It is complicated, because at some level, any individual engaging in sex has to accept that there is risk of conception, even with multiple birth control methods. We need dialogue around this issue before we start to define something that I would say maybe falls more under reproductive rights? As in the right to choose to be a parent? The law has to be dynamic, as it must attempt to define and uphold what is relevant to a just society now. We are demanding more dialogue around a man's right to choose to be a parent - a dialogue that I believe will eventually lead to rulings and laws that reflect what is our new definition of justice on this matter. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
Rape is about violating consent in a sexual context, not about the potential product of that violation. The product (be it sti/pregnancy) is a different area, I think. The rulings would obviously be influenced by the presence/absence of consent, but I don't think they are the same act.

 

[smokey]

I think its one thing if its a case of the man got abusive during the sex ie forcing her to do things she didnt want to, talking degrading and possesive to her as such with the article that sort of thing because it comes under abuse.
I dont agree with the idea of claiming rape just for coming inside her when she told him not to though as this rases so many problems.
What if she got pregnant from precome? thats hardly his fault or didnt withdraw quick enough plus you have the whole issue of proving she said no, proving physical rape is slightly differant as with alot of cases there is evidence of force but proving you just said no ejaculating is probbably harder to prove.
Then you have the whole issue of may have said no one time but yes on other occasions and proving it was the occasion of saying no that caused pregnancy (again im refering to a case like the article.

I think the main issue is if you dont want to get pregnant take some responability yourself and use contraception rather then relying on a method thats proven to be extremly flawed.
Even in a marriage where the husband may refuse condoms or be possesive there is a option to take oral contraception in secret (yes I know some relationships or for religion/coulture reasons its not that simple) but if it was a case of a single woman out sleeping with random partners (one offs or multiple times) and just used the "I said dont come" method and then claimed it as rape just because she was too stupid (sorry if that offends but using no condoms with random partners is nieve, dangerous and silly) to trust the idea that shes safe then I think that would be pretty discusting.

A lot of it is a case of where should the line be drawn.
Did she really tell him no? was she clear enough about it? accidents happen, women lie, not just men should be responsible for condoms, both should take equal blaim if drink is involved.

 

[xemmax]

I think its one thing if its a case of the man got abusive during the sex ie forcing her to do things she didnt want to, talking degrading and possesive to her as such with the article that sort of thing because it comes under abuse.
I dont agree with the idea of claiming rape just for coming inside her when she told him not to though as this rases so many problems.
What if she got pregnant from precome? thats hardly his fault or didnt withdraw quick enough plus you have the whole issue of proving she said no, proving physical rape is slightly differant as with alot of cases there is evidence of force but proving you just said no ejaculating is probbably harder to prove.
Then you have the whole issue of may have said no one time but yes on other occasions and proving it was the occasion of saying no that caused pregnancy (again im refering to a case like the article.

I think the main issue is if you dont want to get pregnant take some responability yourself and use contraception rather then relying on a method thats proven to be extremly flawed.
Even in a marriage where the husband may refuse condoms or be possesive there is a option to take oral contraception in secret (yes I know some relationships or for religion/coulture reasons its not that simple) but if it was a case of a single woman out sleeping with random partners (one offs or multiple times) and just used the "I said dont come" method and then claimed it as rape just because she was too stupid (sorry if that offends but using no condoms with random partners is nieve, dangerous and silly) to trust the idea that shes safe then I think that would be pretty discusting.

A lot of it is a case of where should the line be drawn.
Did she really tell him no? was she clear enough about it? accidents happen, women lie, not just men should be responsible for condoms, both should take equal blaim if drink is involved.

In your post you've removed all of the blame from him and placed it all on her.

Ultimately your entire paragraph about a woman sleeping around is irrelevant to the test case; this woman was married and her husband consciously ignored the request which he had agreed to. What gives him the right to do that?

In relation to this:
"I dont agree with the idea of claiming rape just for coming inside her when she told him not to though as this rases so many problems."
I don't see how the fact that it is difficult to prove should mean that it isn't acknowledged by law? As you say - rape is difficult to prove in most cases.

And as for calling a woman stupid - one night stand or not, if you consent to sex with conditions attached and the man you're sleeping with purposefully breaks them, why is it your fault? Stupid for not using contraception yes, but that doesn't for a second mean you are responsible for a man's refusal to abide by your wishes.

 

[smokey]

I think its one thing if its a case of the man got abusive during the sex ie forcing her to do things she didnt want to, talking degrading and possesive to her as such with the article that sort of thing because it comes under abuse.
I dont agree with the idea of claiming rape just for coming inside her when she told him not to though as this rases so many problems.
What if she got pregnant from precome? thats hardly his fault or didnt withdraw quick enough plus you have the whole issue of proving she said no, proving physical rape is slightly differant as with alot of cases there is evidence of force but proving you just said no ejaculating is probbably harder to prove.
Then you have the whole issue of may have said no one time but yes on other occasions and proving it was the occasion of saying no that caused pregnancy (again im refering to a case like the article.

I think the main issue is if you dont want to get pregnant take some responability yourself and use contraception rather then relying on a method thats proven to be extremly flawed.
Even in a marriage where the husband may refuse condoms or be possesive there is a option to take oral contraception in secret (yes I know some relationships or for religion/coulture reasons its not that simple) but if it was a case of a single woman out sleeping with random partners (one offs or multiple times) and just used the "I said dont come" method and then claimed it as rape just because she was too stupid (sorry if that offends but using no condoms with random partners is nieve, dangerous and silly) to trust the idea that shes safe then I think that would be pretty discusting.

A lot of it is a case of where should the line be drawn.
Did she really tell him no? was she clear enough about it? accidents happen, women lie, not just men should be responsible for condoms, both should take equal blaim if drink is involved.

In your post you've removed all of the blame from him and placed it all on her.

Ultimately your entire paragraph about a woman sleeping around is irrelevant to the test case; this woman was married and her husband consciously ignored the request which he had agreed to. What gives him the right to do that?

In relation to this:
"I dont agree with the idea of claiming rape just for coming inside her when she told him not to though as this rases so many problems."
I don't see how the fact that it is difficult to prove should mean that it isn't acknowledged by law? As you say - rape is difficult to prove in most cases.

And as for calling a woman stupid - one night stand or not, if you consent to sex with conditions attached and the man you're sleeping with purposefully breaks them, why is it your fault? Stupid for not using contraception yes, but that doesn't for a second mean you are responsible for a man's refusal to abide by your wishes.

My point being the test case was one thing but the article gave the impression that it could become a common thing in general to convict men of rape just for ejeculating in a woman weither they be married, in a relationship or one night stands or weither force or abuse was involved or not.
The relationship is irrelivant if abuse or force is involved we all agree on that but what im refering to is litteraly just not pulling out when the time comes.

Im not putting the blaim on the woman im saying share blaime (again I stress I am only refering to not pulling out , I am not refering to force or abuse)

Yes the part about a woman sleeping around is irrelevant to the test case itself but the article wasnt just about the test case as the test case was just a example for the point of the article, the article was generaly refering to how it could become the norm for claimes like this in court no matter the circumstances so for the point of what the article was making it was very relivant.

Again I am not refering to force and abuse as was the test case I am refering to the other claimes of the article about claiming rape just for not pulling out in time.

Just a thought as well can a man claim rape if the woamn was on top and didnt get off in time for him to come?

 

[Button#]

The case for rape is not about her becoming pregnant, although that maybe why she stipulated the conditions, it is about the fact that she consented to sex up until he was ready to ejaculate but specifically said she didn't agree to him ejaculating inside of her. It doesn't matter what part of sex it is if a person says no to any part of it and their partner does it anyway it is rape.

 

[emyandpotato]

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.

Exactly this! I wasn't sure what to make of it either, but I guess by such logic it is rape, though a different classification to 'normal' rape.

 

[Kate&Lucas]

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.

I've not had time to read the original topic in full but I could not agree more with this statement.
From my own experiences and speaking to friends/family about sexual experiences, just in conversation, it seems almost expected that a man will try to force sex on a woman at some point, just because he's a man. It's accepted as what men 'do'. Sex is not a necessity, if you don't have it you won't cease to exist - if there is even a hint of uncertainty then just don't do it. I don't understand why abstaining does not even come into consideration.

 

[lhancock90]

The articles i have read about this are conflicting.
Some have said if a man agrees beforehand to withdraw and does not, that is rape. In which case, i don't think so, many things could affect this. However thats totally different to a woman asking a man to stop during the act and him refusing to, that is rape.

 

[WelshOneEmma]

The articles i have read about this are conflicting.
Some have said if a man agrees beforehand to withdraw and does not, that is rape. In which case, i don't think so, many things could affect this. However thats totally different to a woman asking a man to stop during the act and him refusing to, that is rape.

totally agree.

if you dont want a man to come inside you, get him to wear a bloody condom.