Would you call this rape?

retro:electro

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Wisconsin-and-California-Lawmakers-Take-Aim-at-Stealthing-422878864.html

The state of California aims to make "stealthing", the removal of a condom, unknown to your partner, an act of rape.

TBH I can see both sides to this. You've consented to protected sex, and so the removal of the condom unbeknownst to you violates that, so some breach has occurred.

But on the flip side- when you're consenting to sex- who actually stipulates the conditions of x,y and z and what can and cannot happen during that act? I also know of women who have lied to men about being on the pill before having sex, does this mean they have raped them?

I think it's deceptive sexual assault. Exposing a woman to potential std's and of course the risk of pregnancy without her knowledge is of course a totally abhorrent, scumbaggy, debasing and all around irresponsible thing to do- but rape?

If my boyfriend removes the condom mid act, does that mean he has raped me? Or is it only when there is a risk of an STD involved?
I just think that the definition of the word rape and all it encapsulates is broadening so vastly that some day we'll all be afraid to even touch each other without the solicitor in the room with contracts drawn up.

greencap

hmmm....its something.

but not the r word.

I'd call it deception before id call it rape

Tokyo

I think it counts as an exceptionally ****ty form of non-consensual sex by deception.

To the letter of the law (i.e. current legislation), I'm not sure it would be rape though.

Given the potential consequences of the difference between protected and unprotected sex, it doesn't really bother me if a person is hauled up for rape for deceiving someone into the latter. Though the fact that the woman consented to a sexual act should be a mitigating factor in judging the penalty.

hatrickpatrick

100% yes. And I'd say the same for lying about birth control if you're a woman.

If you agreed to use contraception and you pretend to do so only to deliberately sabotage it in any way, you're a grade A scumbag. Obviously it should count as rape. For that matter, I'd add knowingly having a serious STD and failing to disclose that before hooking up with somebody.

tomwaterford

An irish example??would suggest yes

(hope this not breaking any rules)


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/businessman-in-rape-case-hired-girl-by-phone-26422336.html

wordofwarning

anna080 wrote: »

If my boyfriend removes the condom mid act, does that mean he has raped me? Or is it only when there is a risk of an STD involved?
I just think that the definition of the word rape and all it encapsulates is broadening so vastly that some day we'll all be afraid to even touch each other without the solicitor in the room with contracts drawn up.

Without sounding like a SJW. IMO rape is anything you have not consented to. If you have allowed someone to have sex with you with a condom, you have allowed sex with a condom. If you have wanted to have sex and the other party has done something against your wishes, it is not consent to me. To me telling someone you want safe sex is pretty clear cut.

Would you call it a game of boxing or assault if someone continued to box you against your wishes?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Given the potential consequences of the difference between protected and unprotected sex, it doesn't really bother me if a person is hauled up for rape for deceiving someone into the latter. Though the fact that the woman consented to a sexual act should be a mitigating factor in judging the penalty.

Potential consequences for the bloke too though. It's a rotten thing to do though, you'd wanna be a lunatic to even consider it.

Mickeroo

No.

greencap

If you get done for rape - thats it.

You're screwed for life, and I hear being up on a skin charge in prison is no party.

Its not right to put someone who pulled off a condom in the same lineup as some spacer who hid in the bushes and pulled a woman into a van.

retro:electro

wordofwarning wrote: »

Without sounding like a SJW. IMO rape is anything you have not consented to. If you have allowed someone to have sex with you with a condom, you have allowed sex with a condom. If you have wanted to have sex and the other party has done something against your wishes, it is not consent to me. To me telling someone you want safe sex is pretty clear cut.

Would you call it a game of boxing or assault if someone continued to box you against your wishes?

Okay- grand. And I'm not saying I don't agree with you because I do, but where does it end? A few weeks ago there was a poster here suggesting that sex where the man doesn't make the woman come is abusive. She was laughed out of the place, and rightly so because it's absolutely ridiculous. But going by what you're saying here, it could be deemed abusive? Say a woman says "I'll consent to sex with you, but you must make me climax", and he fails to do so, is this rape?? Do you see what I'm saying?

the_pen_turner

I'm not sure is rape the right term.
there are 2 sides to it.
you are only consenting to safe sex but at the same time there is a chance of the condom breaking so you are consenting to that indirectly.
definitely a ****ty thing to do

I think it should be sexual assault rather than rape

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't know. It's definitely a violation and it's placing her at risk that she hasn't consented to. Would she consent to sex without a condom? If not and you do it anyway then I'd say yes it is as she hasn't given consent

Lady is a tramp

It's certainly not right, but it's not rape either.

Also ... How would the other party involved not notice this happening?

Pac1Man

Nah not rape.

Scummy thing to do though and should be held accountable in some way.

greencap

greencap wrote: »

If you get done for rape - thats it.

You're screwed for life, and I hear being up on a skin charge in prison is no party.

Its not right to put someone who pulled off a condom in the same lineup as some spacer who hid in the bushes and pulled a woman into a van.

But the difference should be reflected in the penalty, not in the conviction, so the guy hiding in the bushes will obviously get a harsher penalty than the guy who "only" tricked the woman into thinking she was engaging in protected sex. Much like the difference between date rape with a drunk girl and, say, the guy who knocks the victim out with a punch to the nose and jaw.

tomwaterford

anna080 wrote: »

Say a woman says "I'll consent to sex with you, but you must make me climax", and he fails to do so, is this rape?? Do you see what I'm saying?

Jesus.....thata all sorts of twisting the words here


Wordofwarning said nothing even approaching that

Prime Irish Beef

I just can't figure out why someone would do this......

Bambi985

greencap wrote: »

Its not right to put someone who pulled off a condom in the same lineup as some spacer who hid in the bushes and pulled a woman into a van.

Almost 90 percent of reported rape cases are by men known to the victim, often previously trusted or loved by her, not by strange men hiding in bushes

Summer wind

No I wouldn't consider this rape. Anyone who's been raped knows exactly what rape means.

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

But the difference should be reflected in the penalty, not in the conviction, so the guy hiding in the bushes will obviously get a harsher penalty than the guy who "only" tricked the woman into thinking she was engaging in protected sex. Much like the difference between date rape with a drunk girl and, say, the guy who knocks the victim out with a punch to the nose and jaw.

Still get rapist beside your name though.

And if that happens - good luck.

tomwaterford

greencap wrote: »

Still get rapist beside your name though.

And if that happens - good luck.

Because by law its still rape.failing to see issue here

pilly

I wouldn't call it rape but would call it sexual assault.

vetinari

Yeah, it's definitely sexual assault

greencap

tomwaterford wrote: »

Because by law its still rape.failing to see issue here

Would you really categorize them the same though?

Convict A - beat his victim over the head in an alleyway and dragged her by the hair into an abandoned building.

Convict B - pulled off the condom and got two strokes off. (edit; with his long term girlfriend who was up for some protected sex)

retro:electro

tomwaterford wrote: »

Jesus.....thata all sorts of twisting the words here


Wordofwarning said nothing even approaching that

I'm not twisting her words, I'm advancing on her argument that "if you want to have sex and the other party does something against your wishes, it is not consent". My example was meant to be ludicrous.

pilly

anna080 wrote:

I'm not twisting her words, I'm advancing on her argument that "if you want to have sex and the other party does something against your wishes, it is not consent". My example was meant to be ludicrous.

So if you agree to have sex and someone decides they want anal and you don't? You can twist it all sorts of ways.

nhunter100

I always understood 'rape' as having someone else engage in sex under duress. To me a male or female can be raped. Removing a condemn is now to be considered rape whereas a sheathed penis is not? Apologies but i call b.s..

tomwaterford

greencap wrote: »

Would you really categorize them the same though?

Convict A - beat his victim over the head in an alleyway and dragged her by the hair into an abandoned building.

Convict B - pulled off the condom and got two strokes off.

I dont make the laws kid


But convict B in your sceario has no right coming to me looking for spampathy...shouldnt have done it ..ignorance of the law is no defence


....let it be a harsh lesson to them and a learning point to everyone else

jimmycrackcorm

It's a ridiculous assertion to insinuate rape with the removal of a condom.

Because the corollary is that it isn't rape if you put a condom on.

Phoebas

pilly wrote: »

You can twist it all sorts of ways.

But only if you ask first.

greencap

tomwaterford wrote: »

I dont make the laws kid


But convict B in your sceario has no right coming to me looking for spampathy...shouldnt have done it ..ignorance of the law is no defence


....let it be a harsh lesson to them and a learning point to everyone else

So you see the issue then.

osarusan

mike_ie wrote: »

To the letter of the law (i.e. current legislation), I'm not sure it would be though.

In the UK it would be, just as it would be if sex was conditional on a guy agreeing not to ejaculate inside the woman, and then he did so.

About being on the pill, I am not sure, as that is not a condition of the act of sex itself.

And with STDs, up to and including HIV, I believe it's not considered rape, for the same reasons.

tomwaterford

greencap wrote: »

So you see the issue then.

No???

RayM

Whatever way you look at it, it's non-consensual unprotected sex.

Emme

It wouldn't be rape but it would be unfortunate. Condoms don't always stay on and the people involved might not realise that until after they had finished having sex.

tomwaterford

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's a ridiculous assertion to insinuate rape with the removal of a condom.

Because the corollary is that it isn't rape if you put a condom on.

Theres alrrady someone been convicted of this in ireland??

retro:electro

For all of those saying it is rape- can you honestly say you'd think it was fair for your brother or son to be called a rapist because he removed a condom during what was considered a consensual act? I can think of a lot of names to call him but none of them are rapist.

greencap

tomwaterford wrote: »

No???

So you see no issue in:

convict A - violent, head smashing, hair dragging, complete non-consensual sex forcing thug.

Being placed in the same category as.

convict B - who sneaked his condom off during a sex session with his long term girlfriend who was up for consensual sex.


these are the same thing to you?

osarusan

anna080 wrote: »

For all of those saying it is rape- can you honestly say you'd think it was fair for your brother or son to be called a rapist because he removed a condom during what was considered a consensual act? I can think of a lot of names to call him but none of them are rapist.

If the partner said that they would only have sex on the condition that a condom was worn, then the removal of the condom means it's no longer consensual.

jimmycrackcorm

RayM wrote:

Whatever way you look at it, it's non-consensual unprotected sex.

Violation of the terms and conditions.

the_pen_turner

where does the law fall if the condom comes off on its own.

nhunter100

osarusan wrote:

If the partner said that they would only have sex on the condition that a condom was worn, then the removal of the condom means it's no longer consensual.

If the condom broke would that be non consensual or just an unforseen consequence?

osarusan

nhunter100 wrote: »

If the condom broke would that be non consensual or just an unforseen consequence?

And if it just comes off by accident...I don't know if it must be proven that the break/removal was deliberate or not.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

anna080 wrote: »

For all of those saying it is rape- can you honestly say you'd think it was fair for your brother or son to be called a rapist because he removed a condom during what was considered a consensual act? I can think of a lot of names to call him but none of them are rapist.

If it was a deal breaker in regards to consent then yes.
Eg.
Lexie: hey Anna let's have sex, I have a penis
Anna: ok Lexie, do you have a condom
Lexie: no
Anna: well not tonight so

If I magically come across (sorry) a condom, you change your mind, and I whip it off knowing it was a dealbreaker for you then it's rape.

nhunter100

osarusan wrote:

And if it just comes off by accident...I don't know if it must be proven that the break/removal was deliberate or not.

Maybe the services of a solicitor and a notary is required where ever a sex act is carried out.

Brian?

anna080 wrote: »

I agree. But who enters the bedroom with that kind of jargon?!

"Put that condom on and I'll have sex with you"

That's hardly jargon. It's consenting to have sex with a condom. It's explicitly clear that the consent is predicated on the use of a condom.

Why are you giving a man who does this an out? It's a disgusting thing to do. It's a betrayal of trust. It's performing a sex act without consent, therefore it's rape.

Brian?

osarusan wrote: »

And if it just comes off by accident...I don't know if it must be proven that the break/removal was deliberate or not.

Condoms come off on their own? All the way off without the man noticing?

I've had them split without noticing but the conform was still on for the most part.

osarusan

Brian? wrote: »

Condoms come off on their own? All the way off without the man noticing?

I've had them split without noticing but the conform was still on for the most part.

I am just commenting on what I understand the law to be, as well as what I don't really know about.

I am pretty sure that the prosecution would make the same argument in court too - that's it's not believable that a man wouldn't know/notice.

greencap

Maybe breach of contract.

Offer and acceptance : coming to bed ? - yes
Consideration exchange : nice juicy cock/hole
Agreement to terms : there will be a jonny.

Deal.


But then, jonny off, so terms violated (post consideration exchange). So breach of contract.