Man in UK jailed for "rape" for poking hole in condom

This sounds awfully similar to what happened to Julian Assange, with the charges coming from Sweden that played a huge part in getting him into the mess he's in.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ner-jailed-for-rape/ar-BB19J0mM?ocid=msedgntp

A man in the UK received a 4-year jail sentence on rape charges after he poked a hole in a condom without telling his partner.

Andrew Lewis, a 47-year-old train driver, had earlier admitted to rape prior to his sentencing.

“It was a breach of trust," the Worcester Crown Court said. "The offense of rape is so serious a custodial sentence is appropriate.”

The woman had made it clear to Lewis that she did not want a baby, but Lewis said he was hoping to change her mind, according to prosecutors.

The woman later called Lewis' actions “pure evil" when speaking to police.

“He told police he had hoped the condom would split and it would improve the intimacy," prosecutor Glyn Samuel said. He said it was the stupidest thing he has ever done. In piercing the condom beforehand there was a degree of planning involved.”

According to prosecutors, the man’s partner discovered Lewis' deception after finding pins and similarly tampered with condoms in a bedside drawer in March 2018. The woman checked the used condom and found the hole.​

 

I do think its a crime to trick someone like that, but it isn't rape. Your article does say he admitted to rape.

 

He admitted to "rape".
"Rape" in this case = poking a hole in the condom to try to get the woman pregnant without her permission

Semantic definitions.

No one here disputes that the woman had consensual sex with him. They were partners, boyfriend/girlfriend.
The woman was not complaining until afterwards when she discovered that a certain aspect of the sex she had she had not given her consent to.

 

These sort of laws stem from feminism.
I think it's kind of ridiculous that this man was sentenced to 4 years.
Maybe a man should suffer some form of punishment for this, BUT, consider this, a man can be convicted based on nothing else than the testimony of the woman.

In the old days, society accepted that if a woman had sex, she (and he) accepted the possibility of consequences that could come along with that.
But today there is a mindset that the woman should be able to have consequence-free sex, and is entitled to have sex with nothing going wrong.
So all the blame here is being placed on the man, for sabotaging this woman's "right" to have sex and not get pregnant.

With feminism taking over in countries like Australia, Sweden, the UK, something like this is considered to be "rape".

 

I deeply dislike Feminism but that doesn't shock me. We could discuss if the name "rape" is appropriate but it's a clear abuse of consent and of the body of someone else.
False rape accusations victims or men victim of rape either by other men or women deserve much more light that kind of scumbag. Clearly that kind of thread is more harmfull to men's right issue than a benecial.

 

Assange was set up. The Swedish law and government are corrupt.

 

No, mostly it was everyone else's fault, the naive gullible public, for being so quick to assume he was a rapist (or was actually being accused of being one), and not realizing that in some countries, things that are not really rape can be charged as "rape".

Not realizing that, in these countries, certain types of sexual allegations that would never be prosecuted as crimes in most other countries, are punished by the state.


I don't like to get into Assange too much, because that can easily derail threads, and his situation was more than a little bit complicated. So for specific discussion about the "rape" charges concerning him, I started a special thread for that: Assange Accusations in Sweden

 

Responding to those who will say this man should be sentenced to many years of jail time...

I just don't think women should be able to have the expectation that she can allow a man to ejaculate in her vagina and she has the right for nothing to go wrong. I think when she allows a man to have sex with her, she inherently consents to some risk of pregnancy.

I'm not saying the man here is not to blame at all, but I believe it's wrong to assign 100% of the blame to him.

It's unreasonable for the woman to think she can have vaginal sex with absolutely no risk whatsoever of getting pregnant. It's not something she has a right to.

The same way a man doesn't have the "right" to have sex with absolutely zero chance of her getting pregnant and him having to pay child support.

If she was the one who was suspected to have likely poked the hole in the condom, would we absolve the man of any obligation to have to pay child support? Of course we would not. The man would still be seen as being responsible, under the law.


My point is, maybe the man should spend 9 months or so in prison, and be responsible for a few financial "damages", but it's ridiculous to say that the man impregnated the woman completely against her will and so he should have to spend 4, 5, or even 10 years in prison.


Maybe if I can explain it this way:
I think she has some level of rights, but those rights are greatly mitigated.

I don't think this should be viewed as a black & white thing. (But I know that's mentally hard to do)

Or think of it this way, there are TWO different perspectives here, and each one has some truth to it. So we need to be able to blend those perspectives together.


She consented to have sex, and sometimes when you have sex you get pregnant anyway, even when the woman, or the man, or both the woman and the man, did not intend for her to get pregnant.

Yes, she does have some right for a man not to go out of his way to sabotage the contraceptives, but it's not an absolute right, in the sense that you can't put all the blame on him if she ends up getting pregnant.
She chose to engage in sex, and so the blame can never be 100% the man's if she gets pregnant, even if he sabotaged the contraceptives.

When she consents to sex, she does not have an absolute right not to get pregnant.
She only has reduced rights.
Which means the man might still deserve some punishment, but it should be far less than it would be if we fully blamed the pregnancy on him.

It's not like he snuck in in the middle of the night and used a turkey baster to impregnate a woman he did not know without her knowing.

If you allow a penis to go inside your vagina, you relinquish some of your consent to being impregnated.
Maybe not all of it, but I would say the majority of it.

Again, just because what the man did was despicable does not mean the legal blame should be 100% assigned to him for the woman's condition of being pregnant.
Even if her being pregnant most likely would not have happened if the man did not do what he did.

When the woman spreads her legs, she gives up some of her rights.

I just think it's ridiculous in these modern days women are saying "I consent to sex but I don't consent to this or that little detail".
It's a lump sum. When you consent to sex, you implicitly consent to a wider range of things. We make it extremely complicated, and like a man-trap, when the man can be severely prosecuted for all sorts of things in the bedroom.

Maybe let me put it to you this way. After consensual sex has begun, forcing a woman to do something in the bedroom after she is screaming "No, no!" is analogous to robbery. Yes, it's totally understandable that that should be prosecuted.
But these other situations of "doing something without her knowing" are analogous to prosecuting cases of "fraud" in the bedroom. And I think those punishments have to be much lighter, because this risks going into ridiculous territory.
We are not talking about a sex act being forced upon her because she was consenting to sexual intercourse the whole time.
It was just there was a certain element of that intercourse she hadn't knowingly consented to. But that's not rape.
"Tricking" a woman might be despicable but it's not rape.

 

Did she consent to unprotected sex?

If your partner tampers with your car brakes so they will fail would they not be guilty of attempted murder. Is it your fault for driving the car?

 

The point is, she consented to the sexual act, and at no time during the sexual act did she say "No, no!" and want to stop it.

It's not rape.

My point was that consent to sex should be, to some limited extent, considered implicit consent to all those aspects of the sex that come along with it.

Pregnancy is not murder though, and is a perfectly natural consequence of two people engaging in consensual sex.

I don't think you can be obsessed as much with the details when it's sex.
That's a very intimate act between two people. This is not just some business transaction or normal criminal case.


I can't emphasize this enough: I believe it is a very dangerous slippery slope when we start holding the man 100% responsible for the minutiae of sex.
Sex was never meant to be casual inconsequential fun, it was meant to be a partnership between two people.

Even in the case of prostitutes, there are special traditional "unwritten rules" that go along with that. (Where the prostitute isn't necessarily entitled to all the same legal protections of a normal woman, because of her profession, but that's why special physical measures were usually in place to protect her)

Courts should not be getting involved in these details in the bedroom.
And it's going to be a disaster if all these rules start becoming applied to married couples. This is only setting a precedent for that.

 

No she consented to protected sex not unprotected sex, I am shocked you do not understand the difference.

If I drive a car there is a possibility I may be involved in an accident I accept that risk, if I drive a car where the brakes have been deliberately tampered with that is an entirely different level of risk forced on me by the tamperer.

 

Were not, the woman consented to protected sex, the man forced by deception unprotected sex on the woman, that is rape.

What sex is meant to be is the choice of consenting adults, not you.

 

I've already addressed both of your statements in things that are in my previous writings, so I'll leave it at that.

 

So I take it if a man can prove a woman poked holes in his condom, you believe he should not have to be responsible for child support?

 

Good idea, you have shown that you think forcing a woman by deception into unprotected sex is not rape! Not a good look.

 

Yes. Or if she claims she is on some other form of contraception and is not.

 

@kazenatsu I think the sentence is heavy. Clearly the guy is at fault.

What disgust me is that we both know that a woman that would trick a man into that would not only get nothing but also child support. All the hypocrisy around "equality".

 

Good luck with that. It may theoretically be the fair thing to do, but trying to implement the idea in actual practice would be a disaster.
Men would falsely accuse women... Just like women are falsely accusing men right now.

I think this is going to turn the courtrooms into a circus.

 

My argument was that the punishment should be very light, and that 4 years prison is far too excessive, and ridiculous.

I would have sentenced him to 9 months maximum and then maybe make him pay some financial damages for the time the woman is pregnant.
4 months would have been reasonable too.

(And I'm even hesitant to make him pay too much financial damages to the woman because that could give women incentive to lie in these situations)

 

You clearly stated "if a man can prove" and in that scenario as in this case the proof was available. The man admitted to tampering with the condoms, he admitted to rape.

 

I don't see why persons should be punished for admitting to something, when those things could never have been adequately proven if they didn't admit to it.
(I mean we are not talking about murder here)

He volunteered that information of his own accord. It doesn't necessarily seem the proper thing to do to judge him for something that he told you he did.

 

I do not think it would, if the man could prove she tricked him, proof is the issue here not equality.

 

No we are talking about rape!

 

She was checking his condoms AFTER having sex? She got pregnant or not?

England is nuts to call this rape unless facts are presented on that issue. The hole in the Condom is not rape, it is deception against her though.

 

Changing definition of rape. The influence of feminism is taking over in the societies and politics of other countries like the UK and Australia (and also Sweden too).

Something else very interesting to notice is that even real rape is surprisingly lightly punished in these countries.
I believe that is because they've lumped these fake type of "rapes" in the same boat together with real rapes, and so the concept of "rape" isn't even seen as being as extremely serious as it once was.

(before the criticism starts, when I'm referring to Australia, I'm mainly referring to certain places in Australia, in particular the state of Victoria)

I agree with you that it's total nuts.