Man jailed for refusing to put on a condom - Rape - Yes or No?

AudreyHepburn

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-jailed-for-rape-after-refusing-to-put-on-a-condom-during-sex-36697498.html

This popped on my Facebook feed and I am curious as to boardsie's opinions?

Personally I don't feel jail is warranted here. If I am reading the article right then he stopped when she said no so regardless whether or not he ever did put the condom on it cannot be rape. Rape would imply he kept going and ignored her request for him to stop.

I'm not saying what he did was right but lets not lose sight of the fact that he did stop when asked.

A very harsh outcome imo.

gizmo555

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If I am reading the article right then he stopped when she said no so regardless whether or not he ever did put the condom on it cannot be rape. Rape would imply he kept going and ignored her request for him to stop.

You're not reading the article right. It was not a question of her asking him to "stop". She said "no", clearly & repeatedly, before he started, but he disregarded that.

pickarooney

Seems clear cut. Not sure what the sledgehammer stuff is about but that seems beside the point.

AustinLostin

Seems cut and dry to me - she said no sex unless you had a condom, and he proceeded to penetrate her without one.

Foxhound38

She outlined her terms of consent and he violated that. Seems fairly clear cut to me, in fairness.

AudreyHepburn

Does the fact that he stopped when she asked him to mean nothing?

Wheety

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Does the fact that he stopped when she asked him to mean nothing?

He started after he was told no.

Do you have to 'finish' for it to count?

Arghus

Yes.

Petyr Baelish

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Does the fact that he stopped when she asked him to mean nothing?

Does the fact that he started when she said not to mean anything to you?

Discodog

I am glad that I am not dating. I wouldn't have any form of sexual contact without video verification of consent.
A conviction will destroy a life.

Pac1Man

I'll check back at page 61 to see what reasonable conclusion we have all collectively come to.

Discodog

Wheety wrote: »

He started after he was told no.

Do you have to 'finish' for it to count?

If she was OK with a condom it was the ending that concerned her.

Tenigate

Oh for god sake. This is the "finger up the arse" courtcase all over again.

Call me old-fashioned, but when 2 adults with complimentary genitalia are naked in a bed and grinding against each other, THAT'S the consent right there. The rest is nature taking it's course.

If she didn't want "unprotected sex" she had 2 options. Either of which would have been 100% effective.
1. Not participated in the sex act with the man
2. Worn a contraceptive herself rather than shifting the blame to the man.

And to use an analogy. If a woman said she didn't want any chips, and then when the chips came she started eating them, whose fault is that?

AudreyHepburn

Wheety wrote: »

He started after he was told no.

Do you have to 'finish' for it to count?

No of course not. You have to keep going when asked to stoped though. And he stopped.

Once again I am not saying what he did is right, it isn’t. I just think hailing him for it is a bit extreme.

pilly

The link doesn't seem to be working?

Wheety

Discodog wrote: »

If she was OK with a condom it was the ending that concerned her.

She said no sex (i.e. penetration) without a condom. Therefore he did not have consent. It's harsh and I do feel for him being jailed for this and this being a life changing event.

Also, do you not think STIs may have been on her mind too? And a woman can become pregnant from precum so he doesn't have to ejaculate fully.

banie01

Consent was conditional upon him wearing a condom and he was aware of that prior to penetration.
No condom, no consent!

Its a hard lesson to learn, unfortunately the auld magic penis doesn't always make her forget
It boils down to this and this alone in my mind.
She said no!
No to unprotected penetration and he ploughed ahead regardless.

LadyMacBeth_

hmm, I'm conflicted on this one. They had a discussion and she explicitly told him that she didn't want to have sex unless he got condoms. So when they were kissing again and he penetrated her, that had to be without her consent, so I would consider that to be rape. He did stop when she told him he was raping her but really that was the decent thing to do, I don't think he deserves a congratulations for that. Then again, is it rape just because he didn't wear a condom even though otherwise she would have had sex with him?

In the past I've sometimes asked guys to put on condoms and they haven't and we've had sex, I've been annoyed afterwards but never thought of it as rape.

Having said that though he has no previous convictions and he did stop as soon as she told him to so three and a half years seems like a harsh sentence for him. This will ruin his career and his personal life, having a conviction like that and the time he spends in prison will have an awful impact and I'm not sure if his crime really justifies that sentence and the repercussions.

The woman does seem to have been very badly affected by this though, so that does have to be taken into account, though I'm not sure why she is afraid of him inflicting violence on her, perhaps he became angry when she asked him to stop. She knows more than we do about the situation I suppose.

Pepefrogok

She specifically gave consent to protected sex, she presumably didn't want exposed to std/aids/pregnancy etc, he engaged in non consensual sex ergo rape.

Arghus

Tenigate wrote: »

Call me old-fashioned, but when 2 adults with complimentary genitalia are naked in a bed and grinding against each other, THAT'S the consent right there. The rest is nature taking it's course.

You are old fashioned.

LadyMacBeth_

Tenigate wrote: »

Oh for god sake. This is the "finger up the arse" courtcase all over again.


And to use an analogy. If a woman said she didn't want any chips, and then when the chips came she started eating them, whose fault is that?

I think it's a bit more like she wanted chips with vinegar and he brought back chips without vinegar and shoved them in her mouth, and then when she asked him not to he stopped. Not really ok to go shoving chips in someone's mouth though, is it?

kylith

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Does the fact that he stopped when she asked him to mean nothing?

That he stopped doing what she had told him not to do in the first place? Why should he get credit for stopping what she had already said not to do?

Tenigate

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

I think it's a bit more like she wanted chips with vinegar and he brought back chips without vinegar and shoved them in her mouth, and then when she asked him not to he stopped. Not really ok to go shoving chips in someone's mouth though, is it?

I think it's more like she wanted a chip<snip>...

Mod note:Poor taste, extremely poor taste. Cut it out, please?

Buford T. Justice.

Hitman3000

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I'm not saying what he did was right but lets not lose sight of the fact that he did stop when asked.

He was told not to start without a condom. He went in bareback therefore without consent, ergo rape and now he pays the price. Next time he might listen with his head instead of his penis.

Sonics2k

Tenigate wrote: »

Oh for god sake. This is the "finger up the arse" courtcase all over again.

Call me old-fashioned, but when 2 adults with complimentary genitalia are naked in a bed and grinding against each other, THAT'S the consent right there. The rest is nature taking it's course.

If she didn't want "unprotected sex" she had 2 options. Either of which would have been 100% effective.
1. Not participated in the sex act with the man
2. Worn a contraceptive herself rather than shifting the blame to the man.

And to use an analogy. If a woman said she didn't want any chips, and then when the chips came she started eating them, whose fault is that?

She didn't participate in it willingly though, that's the point. She said he had to put on a condom in order for her to consent, he didn't.

manonboard

AudreyHepburn;106424162:
I'm not saying what he did was right but lets not lose sight of the fact that he did stop when asked.

​

He raped her. It's very clear cut. He was informed in advance of what he was allowed do. He decided to ignore that and fulfill his own desires against the explicit consent of the other persons regards their body.
It's like someone telling you not to punch them in the face. You punch them in the face, and suggesting its not assault.

Tenigate

Sonics2k wrote: »

She didn't participate in it willingly though, that's the point. She said he had to put on a condom in order for her to consent, he didn't.

Without being vulgar here, but do you know in Clerks 2 when everyone agreed "you never go ass to mouth", then Dante's gf said "Sometimes in the heat of the moment, It's forgivable to go Ass-to-Mouth"

Or what about in "Knocked Up" when Seth Rogan's loveable character misinterprets "consent". Wouldn't have been much of a film otherwise.

Well, I know that's fiction whereas this is reality. But I think the key is "in the heat of the moment".

I think many people have been in the position where, in the heat of the moment, they decide not to use a condom despite previously saying they wouldn't have unprotected sex. I'd go one further and say the decision not to wear a condom was non-verbal by the person who initiated it and non-verbal by the person who went along with it. It doesn't make it rape.

Hector Savage

Tenigate wrote: »

Oh for god sake. This is the "finger up the arse" courtcase all over again.

Call me old-fashioned, but when 2 adults with complimentary genitalia are naked in a bed and grinding against each other, THAT'S the consent right there. The rest is nature taking it's course.

If she didn't want "unprotected sex" she had 2 options. Either of which would have been 100% effective.
1. Not participated in the sex act with the man
2. Worn a contraceptive herself rather than shifting the blame to the man.

And to use an analogy. If a woman said she didn't want any chips, and then when the chips came she started eating them, whose fault is that?

Misleading now in fairness, she did tell him no condom - no sex beforehand!

Seems straightforward enough to me.

lawred2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-jailed-for-rape-after-refusing-to-put-on-a-condom-during-sex-36697498.html

This popped on my Facebook feed and I am curious as to boardsie's opinions?

Personally I don't feel jail is warranted here. If I am reading the article right then he stopped when she said no so regardless whether or not he ever did put the condom on it cannot be rape. Rape would imply he kept going and ignored her request for him to stop.

I'm not saying what he did was right but lets not lose sight of the fact that he did stop when asked.

A very harsh outcome imo.

really?

She says no sex without a condom and he carries on regardless? Not rape? Really?

clairewithani

If she said no sex without a condom and he ignored that and penetrated her it is rape. No question. As for jail, unless courts decide to take a hard line against people who violate others nothing will change.

People with the chips, vinegar, mayo analogy. **** off.

Grayson

Tenigate wrote: »

Oh for god sake. This is the "finger up the arse" courtcase all over again.

Call me old-fashioned, but when 2 adults with complimentary genitalia are naked in a bed and grinding against each other, THAT'S the consent right there. The rest is nature taking it's course.

If she didn't want "unprotected sex" she had 2 options. Either of which would have been 100% effective.
1. Not participated in the sex act with the man
2. Worn a contraceptive herself rather than shifting the blame to the man.

And to use an analogy. If a woman said she didn't want any chips, and then when the chips came she started eating them, whose fault is that?

So what exactly did she give implied consent to? What kind of acts? can it be concluded that she was consenting to anal for example?

The woman said she wouldn't have sex unless he used a condom. She explicitly outlined what it would take for consent. He proceeded to penetrate her. That's rape.

Let's put it this way. Imagine a woman said she'd have sex with a man for 100 euro (Yes, she's a prostitute). Does that mean that if the guy refuses to pay and penetrates her it's consensual sex?

people are allowed to put any preconditions onto sex.

lawred2

Tenigate wrote: »

Oh for god sake. This is the "finger up the arse" courtcase all over again.

Call me old-fashioned, but when 2 adults with complimentary genitalia are naked in a bed and grinding against each other, THAT'S the consent right there. The rest is nature taking it's course.

If she didn't want "unprotected sex" she had 2 options. Either of which would have been 100% effective.
1. Not participated in the sex act with the man
2. Worn a contraceptive herself rather than shifting the blame to the man.

And to use an analogy. If a woman said she didn't want any chips, and then when the chips came she started eating them, whose fault is that?

ah ffs

she said no...

there was no consent... A bit of foreplay is not consent to unprotected sex against her wishes

I'm sure you're not but your post came across a wee bit rapey to be honest..

Specialun

did the couple met up again after this incident?

lawred2

Specialun wrote: »

did the couple met up again after this incident?

relevance?

listermint

lawred2 wrote: »

relevance?

Revenge? Something sometimes becomes something else when someone wants it to.

lawred2

listermint wrote: »

Revenge? Something sometimes becomes something else when someone wants it to.

oh right

I see a bit of victim blaming is in the offing

listermint

lawred2 wrote: »

oh right

I see a bit of victim blaming is in the offing

Whos blaming anyone ? i gave a response to your question.


Get real.

lawred2

listermint wrote: »

Whos blaming anyone ? i gave a response to your question.


Get real.

yeah sure pal... you're getting the groundwork in early

listermint

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah sure pal... you're getting the groundwork in early

Ohh your one of those types.


The type that put words into peoples mouths.

Bully for you pal!

Get any internet trophys for that?

AnSliabhCorcra

I'm not sure that we can comment on the case without the facts. (I can hear the 'no means no' screams) however, they were evidently 'getting jiggy with it' and I don't get the feeling that he just rammed it in there unprotected (i could be wrong).

Consider the following: if a man says 'no penetration unless you're on the pill' and the lady lies saying that she is on the pill and then falls pregnant, would the man be able to pursue this as a rape?

lawred2

listermint wrote: »

Ohh your one of those types.


The type that put words into peoples mouths.

Bully for you pal!

Get any internet trophys for that?

Oh good. You're off and running. I didn't put any words in your mouth. You suggested revenge as a motive... because you know - as you put it

Something sometimes becomes something else when someone wants it to.

Which words did I attribute to you unfairly?

Cyrus

lawred2 wrote: »

oh right

I see a bit of victim blaming is in the offing

ooooh first accusation of victim blaming

Grayson

Specialun wrote: »

did the couple met up again after this incident?

Does it count when she's asked if the man who committed the offence is in court today and she points at the accused?

AudreyHepburn

pilly wrote: »

The link

lawred2 wrote: »

really?

She says no sex without a condom and he carries on regardless? Not rape? Really?

He stopped when asked though, surely that has to be taken into account.

Yes it was wrong and yes he should be punished for it. I just think branding him a dangerous sexual deviant for the rest of his life is extreme.

bullvine

This is the same as stealthing right? A scummy thing to do.

lawred2

pilly wrote: »

He stopped when asked though, surely that has to be taken into account.

Yes it was wrong and yes he should be punished for it. I just think branding him a dangerous sexual deviant for the rest of his life is extreme.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. He's no Larry Murphy. But that's not what the the OP asked.

Tenigate

Grayson wrote: »

people are allowed to put any preconditions onto sex.

Now this is just silly.


I think David Allen Coe sang it best, and it's probably good advice.
"The three biggest lies in the world:
"This'll only hurt for a little while,
I'll only put the head of it in.
I promise that I'll never try to c** in your mouth."

Look it's not nice but seriously, know what you're getting yourself into. It's one thing to consent to sex. It's another to need a law degree social science degree and memory of an elephant to navigate the intricacies of consent. He probably thought, "in the heat of the moment" that it was okay to initiate sex without a condom. He proceeded to. Then she told him to stop, so he did.

AllForIt

If a woman demands that the lights be on and the man proceeds with the lights off can that be called rape...nowadays? Prolly.

Tenigate

AnSliabhCorcra wrote: »

Consider the following: if a man says 'no penetration unless you're on the pill' and the lady lies saying that she is on the pill and then falls pregnant, would the man be able to pursue this as a rape?

Surely that would never happen

lawred2

AllForIt wrote: »

If a woman demands that the lights be on and the man proceeds with the lights off can that be called rape...nowadays? Prolly.

well if the lights off could result in unwanted pregnancies or STIs then yeah possibly

listermint

lawred2 wrote: »

Oh good. You're off and running. I didn't put any words in your mouth. You suggested revenge as a motive... because you know - as you put it



Which words did I attribute to you unfairly?

So much winning.

Winning the internet today.


First past the post .


Woot woot