HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Not using a condom when y...

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 05:12 AM

Not using a condom when you promise to is unacceptable.

But it isn't rape.

66 replies, 7274 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Not using a condom when you promise to is unacceptable. (Original post)
Bonobo Mar 2015 OP
PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #1
Bonobo Mar 2015 #2
Veilex Mar 2015 #5
PeteSelman Mar 2015 #3
Bonobo Mar 2015 #4
Veilex Mar 2015 #6
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #7
Veilex Mar 2015 #9
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #14
Veilex Mar 2015 #16
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #17
Veilex Mar 2015 #18
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #19
Veilex Mar 2015 #20
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #21
Veilex Mar 2015 #22
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #23
Veilex Mar 2015 #25
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #28
Veilex Mar 2015 #31
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #36
Veilex Mar 2015 #38
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #39
Veilex Mar 2015 #43
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #47
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #40
Veilex Mar 2015 #42
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #44
Veilex Mar 2015 #46
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #48
JimDandy Mar 2015 #51
Veilex Mar 2015 #52
Eleanors38 Mar 2015 #66
prayin4rain Mar 2015 #60
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #61
prayin4rain Mar 2015 #62
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #8
Veilex Mar 2015 #10
Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #11
Veilex Mar 2015 #12
Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #13
Veilex Mar 2015 #15
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #33
Veilex Mar 2015 #35
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #41
Veilex Mar 2015 #45
Veilex Mar 2015 #57
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #58
Veilex Mar 2015 #59
JimDandy Mar 2015 #53
Veilex Mar 2015 #54
JimDandy Mar 2015 #55
Veilex Mar 2015 #56
Behind the Aegis Mar 2015 #24
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #26
Behind the Aegis Mar 2015 #27
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #29
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #30
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #32
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #34
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #37
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2015 #49
Veilex Mar 2015 #50
tonedevil Mar 2015 #63
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #64
Bonobo Mar 2015 #65

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 05:43 AM

1. If you consent to have sex with someone provided they use a condom and they don't

use the condom is it consensual sex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 05:48 AM

2. I think so, yes.

Sex with or without a condom is sex. Sex therefore was consented to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 12:14 PM

5. It may not meet the strict definition of rape, however, its is, without a doubt, sexual assault.

 

If someone gives preconditions to an interaction, and those preconditions aren't met, that constitutes a violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 08:05 AM

3. If wrapping it is a condition for consent then yes, it is.

If a woman sets a rubber as a condition and you don't follow it, you have indeed raped her. Because she only agreed to sex with a condom.

It's pretty clear in my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeteSelman (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 08:33 AM

4. So logically then, it would follow that other conditions not being met would also make it "rape"

Condition: You can have sex with me if you keep your socks on.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you break up with your girlfriend.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you let me have an orgasm first.

Condition: You can have sex with me if you let me be on top,

Or more to the point, what if the woman lies about being on the pill, but isn't. Would that make it "rape"?

etc.

Would breaking those conditions make it "rape"? If not, what is the logical difference?

As I said, it is unacceptable to lie about using a condom or being on both birth control.

But rape? No, it is something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 12:20 PM

6. "Would breaking those conditions make it "rape"?" - Those conditions are absurd and unrealistic.

 

A condom prevents exposure to semen. Keeping socks on does no such thing. In essence, this is more a question of are you respecting her rights and desires to not get pregnant, or be exposed to your particular brand of chemical cocktail.

Ignoring that, is in fact, tantamount to rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:14 PM

7. By that logic a woman claiming to be on BC duplicitously is "tantamount to rape"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:03 AM

9. I happen to be of the opinion that a women lieing to a man about being on the pill and coexing him..

 

into sex is also a quite serious issue. However, a man always has the choice to use a condom. So claiming to be on birth control does not in fact deprive you of your right to choice. You can always choose to wrap it up. What's she gonna do, refuse have sex? Aww darn. I guess you'll just have to go take care of your own business. The world won't stop just because you refuse to risk getting someone pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:13 AM

14. Not having sex at all is also a choice which hasn't been deprived in this scenario

Which makes the whole idea nothing at all like rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:27 AM

16. "Not having sex at all is also a choice" - I kinda just said that.

 

"Which makes the whole idea nothing at all like rape." - Not sure how to take this. It almost sounds like your trying to create a false equivalency between abstinence and not using a condom.

In any case, we're specifically talking use of prophylactics rather than abstinence. My point was if she isn't willing to have sex with you while you're wearing a condom, then you might want to just pass up sex with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:37 AM

17. I'm not creating a false equivalency, I'm pointing out one

In any case, we're specifically talking use of prophylactics rather than abstinence.


Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:47 AM

18. Your completely missing the point.

 

It is your choice to use a condom or not. Choosing not to, when being explicitly asked to, it is sexual assault. You can always choose to walk away from sex if she's not willing to have sex with you while using a condom. This isn't about abstinence, as you're attempting to frame it, but about choice. You have one. If you choose not to use it responsibly, then your due all the crap-storm that follows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:55 AM

19. Because I don't agree with your false assertion, doesn't mean I'm missing your point

It is your choice to use a condom or not. Choosing not to, when being explicitly asked to, it is sexual assault.


Not in any jurisdiction that I'm aware, including all 50 states and even Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:08 PM

20. That you agree or not is irrelevent.

 

You can argue all you want, but I was law enforcement. I'm something of an authority on subject. If at ANY point in time, the female objects to sexual contact, and you proceed with that contact ...no debate... no questions... its rape. And that is for every jurisdiction in the US. Meaning, if you don't wrap it, and she wanted you to, its rape. Its that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:23 PM

21. Non-sequitur

True:
If at ANY point in time, the female objects to sexual contact, and you proceed with that contact ...no debate... no questions... its rape.


Not true:
in the US. Meaning, if you don't wrap it, and she wanted you to, its rape. Its that simple.


If you want to be perceived as an expert, then cite the law in question, verbatim, and then we'll have something to talk about. Regardless of what you think or what you think your authority is, your opinions are not the same as the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:49 PM

22. No, that's not a non-sequiter. You're splitting hairs.

 

If she objects to sex without a condom, and you proceed to have sex with her anyway, over her objections, its rape. Its cut and dry.

I'm not going to quote muni code to you... partly because I don't remember the verbatim code, and partly cause muni code is left intentionally vague to catch scenarios exactly like this. As to law enforcement opinions, you'd surprised just how much of our opinion ends up playing into what laws end up being applicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:00 PM

23. Just one sexual assault statute that mentions codom use is fine

I know of none. If you can't quote one, then it's not cut and dry any more than saying a promise that the laundry was done as a condition of consensual sex is cut and dry.

As to law enforcement opinions, you'd surprised just how much of our opinion ends up playing into what laws end up being applicable.


So if you can't produce a relevant statute, then how about relevant case law? Any cites for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:08 PM

25. "mentions codom use" - You've added artificial requirements.

 

The key here is that she objects. If she objects, regardless of reason (up to and including the lack of use of a condom), then it is sexual assault.

You're not gonna be happy until you see some laws on though are you? Fine. Here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.060 - As you'll see, all that is required is for her to object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:17 PM

28. You stole my line!

Adding artificial requirements is exactly what you're doing. Nobody is suggesting sex without consent isn't rape. So pretending as much and then arguing from that basis is strawman.

The word "condom" doesn't appear in your cited statute, nor does it appear in the section that defines consent. Nor does the section that defines consent allow for any conditions to be placed on consent. This is what it does say:

(7) "Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.


If two people agree to have sex, then it's not rape. It's just not that complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:26 PM

31. "If two people agree to have sex, then it's not rape." - except that your ignoring the precondition.

 

The precondition is pivotal as a determinant. The precondition, by its very nature, is an objection to sex, without condom. Thereby establishing that if you commit sexual acts, in violation of the precondition, then its sexual assault.

Sorry, Major Nikon, but your just not on the right side of this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:36 PM

36. ...

Rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you use a condom. Sex proceeds without BC.

Not rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you're on the pill. Sex proceeds without BC.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:42 PM

38. The op isn't about the pill.

 

Its about condom use, as you yourself pointed out just recently. Working a double standard wont help your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:47 PM

39. It's the exact same standard

Claiming otherwise does not help your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:19 PM

43. You're on the losing end of an argument so you distract away from it and...

 

project onto me a stance I neither assumed nor support? Rather petulant and disingenuous of you.
That's fine. This conversation has long since gotten stale anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:35 PM

47. Danth's Law applies well here

“If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:48 PM

40. retroactive consent

 

This isn't; "You didn't mow the lawn... so no sex for you". This is; "You promised to mow the lawn first! We agreed to have sex and now I can see it wasn't done! Rape!"

The post-facto discovery of the "pivotal precondition" doesn't erase the consent.

"You didn't tell me you were married!" ≠ rape
"You told me you were on the pill!" ≠ rape
"You looked a lot better at closing time." ≠ rape

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #40)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:13 PM

42. Actually...

 

agreeing to use a condom and not doing so as a prerequisite to sex does constitute sexual assault, and there's at least one case I can recall where someone went to jail over exactly that. So there is legal jurisprudence on this issue as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:21 PM

44. Getting arrested and being put in jail is not "legal jurisprudence"

If you have a cite for a conviction for such a thing, a link might help your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:33 PM

46. I don't think so.

 

I'm done with your double standards and goal-post moving.
Our conversation is over and I'm done with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:40 PM

48. Your entire argument is nothing but a double standard

Rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you use a condom. Sex proceeds without BC.

Not rape:
I agree to have sex, but only if you're on the pill. Sex proceeds without BC.

So it's quite telling how you'd project that behavior on others.

It's also very telling how a request for proof of your assertion gets such a reply.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:52 PM

51. Do you have a case citation for the one case that resulted in jail

for lack of condom use?

Did it have anything to do with having sex without informing the partner of possible exposure to a disease like HIV rather than potentially violating an agreed on verbal contract for use of a condom during sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #51)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 02:01 PM

52. "Do you have a case citation for the one case" - I do not.

 

My scope of knowledge on this particular case is limited as I was not at the trial. I know that lack of condom use was a significant determinant in applying the scope of charges. I also know the assailant was found guilty of sexual assault and that it resulted in jail time. I have no additional knowledge on the case beyond that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 03:05 PM

66. There are potential consequences occurring to both parties, but it ain't assault.

 

Years ago I was having an affair in which I was already prepared to use a condom, but when the big moment came, she said she didn't won't to use it. I asked if she was sure she wouldn't get pregnant, and her response was she was still on the pill (we had previous dates, and were both sure disease & pregnancy were not issues). Her concern was that she hadn't had a bath in a couple of days (she didn't need to remind me of that), and was afraid that going out to dinner later would make me "noticeable." Then she got to kind of liking that prospect (I guess it was a territorial marking instinct). She then assaulted me. Phew! she was right, but I saw her point: Nothing like a little recognition in public!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:10 PM

60. Condoms protect against AIDS and other STDs, birth control pills do not. They're not equivalent. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prayin4rain (Reply #60)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:23 PM

61. Which was never the point

The point was whether any preconditions to consent exist within the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:30 PM

62. Oh, I thought it had already been determined that framing it as a simple

breaking of pre-conditions scenario was silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeteSelman (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:34 PM

8. Is "I'm on the pill! Honest!" Rape?

 

You are describing exactly the same scenario.

... Arguably, it's worse because an unwanted pregnancy is terminable by women, but not men.

I see major nikon asked the same question, but if "fraud=rape" then it really does deserve an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:06 AM

10. Nothing about "I'm on the pill! Honest!" stops you from using a condom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:48 AM

11. unless youre in a commited relationship and havent been using them at her request b/c she's

 

on the pill then decides that since you havent married her already it's ok to stop taking the pill without telling you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romeo.lima333 (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:57 AM

12. In that scenario, there are bigger things at issue. Namely issues of trust between the two of you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:02 AM

13. she wanted to get married and thought this was the way to go about it, i guess

 

she went on to have an affair then eventually left me for someone else. of course she didnt tell me she was leaving me untill after i helped her move. she moved in with her sister and of course since we werent married i couldnt move in with her b/c of her sisters kids

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romeo.lima333 (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:14 AM

15. Some women are in love with the idea of being in love and/or having kids.

 

This is why men have to be especially vigilant when a female wants sex. Why does she want sex? Is she trying to get pregnant? Has she talked about children a lot recently? A woman should respect your desire to not be a father just as much as a man should respect a woman's desire to not be a mother. Always wrap up your little friend unless you're ready for kids. Even in a committed relationship. Perhaps especially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:29 PM

33. A reversible male contraceptive is way overdue.

 

The technology to do it has existed for 20 years, but due to a variety of reasons, most of which are business and political, it hasn't come to market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:36 PM

35. "A reversible male contraceptive is way overdue." - Totally!

 

Last I heard about anything in this vein, there was a BC pill that had been made for men. But rather than doing what was intended, it actually did some pretty horrible things to male body chemistry, and I believe it was scrapped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:00 PM

41. All of the major research on the topic is happening in other countries (of course)

 

Most of it is in Australia and India. David Handelsman, medical professor at the University of Sydney and director of the ANZAC Research Institute said:
The scientific basis and proof of principle for male contraception using hormones to suppress sperm production is now well established by academic researchers in various studies mostly supported by the WHO (and also CONRAD and Population Council) over the last 3 decades. The efficacy issues are very clear - it is highly effective, comparable to any hormonal contraceptive in women.
The safety issues are OK so far but would require large scale studies to fully evaluate (a catch-22 as long as there is no commercial product).

The goal would be primarily for men in stable relationships (like a reversible vasectomy) but to a lesser extent for use by single (or even married) men who wish to control their fertility. However academic researchers cannot produce a commercial product and that requires pharmaceutical company involvement.
It is now clear that no pharma are interested to do this. The last companies departed the field in the last few years. Whether the growing pharma industry in India and China may think differently is one hope...

The reasons are primarily commercial and, to at most a minor extent, political. At various times companies have said any one of the following — frankly I don't know which is the real reason, but Boards of pharma companies are not in favour even when there are a few proponent scientists in the companies—
too high commercial risk (too low cost and income to compete with low cost oral contraceptives; high litigation risk to treat healthy men, especially in the USA); there is no interest or demand from men (company and independent surveys dispute this); women may not trust their men to use contraceptives (this has been disproven by the companies and by women in stable relationships who rely on vasectomy - why would men trust women who say they take pills?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:25 PM

45. "All of the major research on the topic is happening in other countries "

 

Is it just me or is all the worthwhile research being done everywhere BUT the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 12:39 AM

57. Somthing else I've noticed with the notion of the male BC pill...

 

There are at least some women who hate the idea of not being the ultimate decision maker on if she and her partner have a child.
Male BC was brought up by a friend of mine a while back, and the two women that accompanied us were quite vocal about not liking the idea. I remember hearing the phrase "Its my decision it get pregnant... not his!" When I suggested it should be something mutually agreed upon if in a relationship, they nearly went ballistic.

I'm sure not all women agree with those two, but men should have the ability to prevent a woman he's sleeping with from getting pregnant by simply taking a pill... just like women can.

It could solve a lot of issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:50 AM

58. Exactly. I am convinced that this is the main stumbling block.

 

All the "but men won't use it" or "I can't trust him to take it" is meant to obfuscate the fundamental issue: power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #58)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 01:20 PM

59. Yeah...given the option, I'm pretty sure a heck of alot of men would use it.

 

I sure would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 03:17 PM

53. What an awful misogynistic comment:

"Some women are in love with the idea of being in love and/or having kids. This is why men have to be especially vigilant when a female wants sex."

So, if a woman initiates/wants sex, a man has to be especially vigilant because she might want children (no trust issues with your partner there...no sir!), but if a man wants sex, full steam ahead!

Let me educate you: Women, just like men, can want sex just because they're fucking (appropriate use here) horny. And no siree bob, women can't have sex because they might ACTUALLY BE IN LOVE with their partner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #53)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 09:32 PM

54. "Let me educate you" - No, allow me to educate you, ma'am...

 

You've projected a stance onto me that I have not taken. I'll thank you to allow me my own council on how I feel on the issues. That I've not spoken on the issue of men wanting sex, does not in any way equate to your framing of "if a man wants sex, full steam ahead!" You don't get to decide for me what my beliefs are, thank you very much! I'll also thank you to cease and desist your attempts to derail the conversation, if that is indeed what you're trying to do.

I can tell you've not bothered to read my prior posts, or perhaps only read one or two... else you'd see very quickly that my stance is inclusive on choice for both the man and the woman. I find your knee-jerk response insulting, ill-informed and - worthy.

You don't have to agree with me, but you could afford me at least enough respect to see what I've already written before making a presumptive and bombastic retort.

*Edited to represent the correct gender I was speaking to*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #54)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:20 PM

55. Your comment is very clear

and extremely misogynistic. I read all your posts prior to this one... No misunderstanding at all by THIS woman. Good day...

ETA: didn't notice this thread was in the Men's Group... That explains it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:37 PM

56. Riiiight... enjoy your own confirmation bias.

 

Looks like you'll be the next person to decorate my ignore list.

Its getting workout lately.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:03 PM

24. You will likely not get an answer to the question.

It exposes a double standard. There are different laws in different countries relating to this OP, but I don't know of any in the US which would equate a promise of a condom, then not using one as "rape." In some places it is considered "theft by deception."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:08 PM

26. That implies sex has value

And leads to all sorts of follow up questions such as value for whom and how much. Are we talking petty theft or grand larceny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:13 PM

27. As I understand it, petty theft.

And yes, it does bring up various other questions and concerns. I know this is the case in Israel, (I believe) Greece, and the Czech Republic. There are a few other countries too, Ireland is one, I think. Someone posted about these situations and the countries that have these unusual interpretations a few years back. To be honest, it may have been at DU2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:19 PM

29. I would not be surprised at all if duplicitously claiming to use BC has been interpreted as a crime

However, I would be surprised if anyone anywhere has defined it as rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:24 PM

30. Arguably, unplanned pregnancy does have a cost.

 

A woman who has sex with a man who falsely claims to be infertile (for whatever reason) risks the expenses related to ending that unwanted pregnancy.
A man who has sex with a woman "on the pill" incurs the expense of raising his unwanted child to adulthood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:27 PM

32. Yes, consequences tend to have costs associated

But not all sex has tangible consequences, in fact most of it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:33 PM

34. The purpose of condoms and birth control are to mitigate risk.

 

I certainly wouldn't agree that unprotected sex is rape, but I would say that the degree of fraudulent harm involved in the pill example is at least as severe as that in the condom one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:40 PM

37. True

But what some are arguing is that consensual, but duplicitous sex without a condom is rape, but consensual, but duplicitous sex without other forms of BC is not. The doublethink is very strong here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:59 PM

49. No, I think that it is a crime, or at least a law that should exist

Just as I think a woman who tampers with condoms or does not use birth control when they say they are is also committing a crime.

I am consistent on this. Anyone who thinks there should be a different standard for each gender should be ashamed of themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:38 AM

50. Indeed

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:27 PM

63. How do you envision...

 

this happening? Baseline assumption woman says let's have sex, but you need to wear a condom. If the man does not put on said condom, the woman reiterates that the condom is required, the man continues the act over her objections. Can we agree that is unambiguously rape? How about if the man does not put on a condom, proceeds to continue the sex, but this time the woman although not wanting to doesn't take this opportunity to reiterate her requirement? Lastly, what if the man puts the condom on, but purposely slips it off and the woman is unaware until the act is completed.
I believe that any of those scenarios can see the man successfully prosecuted for rape. The only way to avoid that is if he gets pretty clear consent to disregard the wear a condom condition. Reality is that the man is rarely going to face any consequences. The woman is going to be subject to slut shaming and subjected to a general disbelief that she "resisted enough".
So no I don't belive "have sex without a condom" is mentioned in any rape laws. I also don't see how you are not having unconsentual sex If that is a condition and you ignore it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #63)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 02:37 PM

64. If either party objects to sex and sex procedes, it's rape

Whether or not there's a condom involved is irrelevant.

Man tells woman he doesn't want to have sex unless she is current on the pill. Woman assures man she is current on the pill. Sex proceeds even though woman knows she isn't on the pill.

Is this rape?

If the answer is no (and I'm pretty sure it is), then your 2nd and 3rd scenario either has the same answer, or there's a serious double standard which is being conveniently ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 24, 2015, 10:01 PM

65. Rather simple, isn't it. nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread