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

The fact that she gave consent for protected sex should not mean that all of the blame is on the guy if she gets pregnant.

When you have sex, you can get pregnant.

It's ridiculous to think you can have a penis enter into your vagina and be assured 100% that nothing is going to get through.

Pregnancy is also not going to kill her, and maybe she should have thought about that before...

 

If I give my consent to play russian roulette with a blank bullet there is a chance the shock might kill me, I do not give consent to you replacing the bullet with a live one!

 

Judge Cole said the woman had made it clear she did not want a baby and had only consented on the basis that Lewis wore a condom.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/05/man-...partner-jailed-for-rape-13373324/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Quite clear she did not give consent to unprotected sex.

 

sure it can, women can lie and say they are on the pill, men can lie and say they are richer than they are, people can lie about having affairs.... happenens all the time

you're the one that won't answer if the above it rape

we can agree that lying to get someone to get consent for sex is wrong, but it's not rape

by your logic a married woman that lied about being single on a dating app, would be guilty of rape if a man had sex with her

 

If I was a juror, I would assume she could have likely been lying about that. Maybe she only assumed that was implied, but now she has to lie about it and say that is what they explicitly agreed, for her to have better grounds for a case against him.

Oh, I don't doubt that the man completely knew she didn't want a baby, in this case, but was an explicit agreement actually worked out?

 

So you believe it is still consent even if it can be proved you obtained that consent through deceit?

 

She consented to sexual intercourse, but she did not specifically and explicitly consent to reproduction.

I think in this case, STDs can be regarded as kind of irrelevant, or less relevant, since they were partners and sleeping together over a fairly long period of time.

 

No the guy admited he knew she did not want unprotected sex. Again rather than stick to the case you talk about what ifs.

 

And again you deflect from the question of consent and whether consent can be obtained by deceit!

 

Then maybe we should talk about whether this man should be punished for admitting to something, when there would not have been adequate evidence if he did not do that.

 

I believe vaginal intercourse gives implicit consent, to some extent, for him to do what he did.

Notice I said some extent. That means I'm still open to the possibility of him getting a little bit of punishment. But much less than he actually did in this story.

When it comes to something like sex, you can't say "I want this, but not that".
You choose the man who sleeps with you, and you can say stop and he has to stop within 90 seconds and start being very careful, but that is about it.

Also okay with him getting punished for knowingly giving you an STD, but only because that is unnatural, not a routine part of sex.
But ironically in many of these progressive places they've drastically reduced the penalties on that.

 

No because he did, not off on another of your what ifs!

 

Really, I can and do, I suggest you find some less dominant partners!

 

You know, if you want to win an argument with me here, your best line of debate would be try to compare a pregnancy with getting an STD.

I don't know if you could win that, but I think that would be your best bet, from what I can see.
That seems to be the only area in my argument where I feel a little shaky and slightly unsure.

 

Not interested in winning an argument, just in putting the truth and watching you deflect around the central issue of consent whilst showing you support a convicted and self admitted rapist. I have no interest in your pregnancy std deflection it has nothing to do with the case we are discussing.

 

yes, if a woman tells you she is on the pill and you consent to sex with her, it is not rape

deceitful yes, rape no

 

So how would this work, exactly? Would the man, realizing the woman was going to go to police and out him for what he did, try to make it to police first, and falsely accuse the woman of not being on the pill so she would be arrested first, and thus he would be protected from the accusations against her? (Because then it would look like she was just making false accusations against him to defend her own misconduct)

All of this is going to be really hard, or nearly impossible to prove with physical evidence. The holes in the condom, the man could just claim it was the woman who got hold of the condom and was the one who poked the holes, to be able to falsely accuse him. Or are couples going to fight over the condom after intercourse due to suspicions over the other one? It is just going to get ridiculous, and every case of sex could be transformed into a game of intrigue, cynical calculations and plotting.