RAPE CONVICTION FOR REMOVING CONDOM

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017...-sex/21653990/

consent is consent bro

consent is consent bro Originally Posted by Raikage

I disagree...consent given was for protected sex...consent was not given for unprotected sex...if a provider consents to protected sex and the john removes the condom and forces unprotected sex the original consent is constructively withdrawn imho...thats rape

What about it, ladies? Would like to hear a provider's view

This happened in Switzerland. Any examples a little more local?

Unaware of any...but a principal knows no boundaries imo
The consent was given based on a misrepresentation

I agree that it's rape, but principles always depend on boundaries in matters of law. I'd also be curious if there's any case law in the U.S. but not curious enough to look for it. It doesn't affect me, because I'd never try it for fear of getting my head split open.

consent is consent bro Originally Posted by Raikage

It does - but you're forgetting it only lasts until it is no longer consent with the utterance of one word: "STOP". And all doubt in removed by "STOP NOW".

Now if he got inside and she realized 3 seconds later he was bareback, AND said stop now, AND he persisted -- I would say this is an open and closed case. The condom isn't even of any relevance, but only the fact that she ended consent.

However. This is more fucked up and I really don't know off hand the right principles, philosophically, to decide if the judge's call is reasonable in this case. FOR EXAMPLE, he is creating a new class of rape called "sex achieved under false pretenses". So what happens now when a guy is in a high-end sports car RENTAL CAR, and the woman sleeps with him because she thought it is really his car? Rape. What happens when a guy claims his salary is 6 figures, out on the date, but fails to mention that he is self-employeed so after self employment tax destroys him, he barely makes as much as a company man on the $70k salary payroll? Again, sex under false pretenses, RAPE!!! These are all cases where the woman consented only because she believed a certain fact to be true (condom on dick VS owner of car). It might be a leap for my particular examples, but there are muddy, muddy waters ahead for less obvious examples I haven't dreamed up -- I'm sure.

A lot of ... dumbish girls in foreign countries sleep with my one friend because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE he is Bruno Mars. He just nods his head, whatever you say woman... I guess now he'll be a rapist because when she wakes up in the morning and texts his photo to her friend who explains he is NOT Mr Mars.... her consent was only given to Mr Mars himself and not my friend.

It does - but you're forgetting it only lasts until it is no longer consent with the utterance of one word: "STOP". And all doubt in removed by "STOP NOW".

Now if he got inside and she realized 3 seconds later he was bareback, AND said stop now, AND he persisted -- I would say this is an open and closed case. The condom isn't even of any relevance, but only the fact that she ended consent.

However. This is more fucked up and I really don't know off hand the right principles, philosophically, to decide if the judge's call is reasonable in this case. FOR EXAMPLE, he is creating a new class of rape called "sex achieved under false pretenses". So what happens now when a guy is in a high-end sports car RENTAL CAR, and the woman sleeps with him because she thought it is really his car? Rape. What happens when a guy claims his salary is 6 figures, out on the date, but fails to mention that he is self-employeed so after self employment tax destroys him, he barely makes as much as a company man on the $70k salary payroll? Again, sex under false pretenses, RAPE!!! These are all cases where the woman consented only because she believed a certain fact to be true (condom on dick VS owner of car). It might be a leap for my particular examples, but there are muddy, muddy waters ahead for less obvious examples I haven't dreamed up -- I'm sure.

A lot of ... dumbish girls in foreign countries sleep with my one friend because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE he is Bruno Mars. He just nods his head, whatever you say woman... I guess now he'll be a rapist because when she wakes up in the morning and texts his photo to her friend who explains he is NOT Mr Mars.... her consent was only given to Mr Mars himself and not my friend. Originally Posted by parasitius

Good point...it is as they say a slippery slope

The rape under false pretenses mostly applies to where the woman consents to sex because she thought you were some one that she would normally give consent too like a boyfriend or husband. Example: Dude pretends to be his brother to have sex with brother's wife.

People lie all the time about their social status to get laid. How many people say they are single when they are not to get laid? Is that really rape? I doubt the law was originally created for these instances, but a judge can interpret however he/she wants. That's what judges do.

I disagree...consent given was for protected sex...consent was not given for unprotected sex...if a provider consents to protected sex and the john removes the condom and forces unprotected sex the original consent is constructively withdrawn imho...thats rape Originally Posted by bachus

you disagree that consent is consent? You guys misunderstood my words completely. The guy didn't have consent to take off the condom, so it was not consent.

As for the condom thing, calling it rape might be a bit drastic. Condoms can break during the sex act. So now I have to worry of a rape conviction because of an accident? Sex can be a risky thing. When you consent to sex you also assume all the risk involved with sex. That means condoms breaking and STDs, etc. In any case, a morning after pill can solve one of the issues, but the STD one might be harder. Although, I know you can make a case against someone if they knowingly give you an STD. Real world cases of that have trialled. Originally Posted by decoyoctopus88

A condom breaking is just that an accident however a guy taking a condom off to bare fuck a girl is not an accident. He new what he was doing when he took the shit off, the condom just didn't fall the fuck off. Im sorry but if you take the condom off and the girl tells you NO and you continue thats rape! Rape is rape doesnt have shit to do with a condom. You can be raped with or with out one. Of course you can catch an std from sexual contact, you know that anytime you have some contact with someone, hence the reason the "condom" is used. You are aware that you could catch something however you arent told im gonna try to secretly take the protection off that we had both agreed to use and that im going to do it with out your permission(consent). If a guy tried to do that to me they wouldn't have to worry about a rape charge he's going to get his ass beat.

What if the guys dick is small and it falls off? Rape imo is forcing someone but this wasn't the case as I understand. I think he should have gotten a better lawyer. If this were the case there would be lots of rapes going on from this site...

I would think this would be hard to prove

What if the guys dick is small and it falls off? Rape imo is forcing someone but this wasn't the case as I understand. I think he should have gotten a better lawyer. If this were the case there would be lots of rapes going on from this site... Originally Posted by Congratulations

Having a small dick and the condom falling off can be an accident. However the guy still knows if it's on his dick or not and thus continuing knowing its not on is not an accident.

rape
[reyp]
noun
1.
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.