Philosophically, the partner performing the penetration has a bigger responsibility. So if you are a man penetrated by a woman and you want to stop mid penetration then she has to stop, if you are the one penetrating just stop yourself.
Rape Discussion
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Philosophically, the partner performing the penetration has a bigger responsibility. So if you are a man penetrated by a woman and you want to stop mid penetration then she has to stop, if you are the one penetrating just stop yourself.
Theoretically possible.
Are you the kind of guy that goes to a Black Lives Matter demonstration screaming that all lives matter?
Oooh. I don't disagree but now we're opening cans of worms with inequality here, objectively speaking.
Seriously though, not looking for a 10 page debate here. Just leaving some food for thought...
Also more food for thought: Think of all the men who wanted to pull out but were not allowed to, and also the women who lie to men about being on contraception in order to get pregnant knowingly.
Um no, but all lives matter don't they?
Unfortunately, I don't think Ronaldo will suffer the consequences other celebrities in the Film industry had to deal with. Football is a male dominated sport from players to fans, and as we can see in this thread, plenty are happy to just ignore the accusations unless there's enough evidence to send him to prison, and you can bet some fans will be happy to watch him play again when he gets out.
I'm not necessarily saying we have to take sides, but Ronaldo paid that women to not speak about this, and this should at least give you enough reason not to try to justify his actions or defend him.
I have no doubt that there're hundreds of women out there that got raped by footballers and never said a word out of fear of retaliation from football fans.
I'm not necessarily saying we have to take sides, but Ronaldo paid that women to not speak about this, and this should at least give you enough reason not to try to justify his actions or defend him.
I have no doubt that there're hundreds of women out there that got raped by footballers and never said a word out of fear of retaliation from football fans.
You don't have to agree because that's what it is and there is no can of worms. In that area touching and penetrating are two different things that lead to different type of convictions, it's not about gender it's about physical intrusion. If a woman uses a strapon on an other woman and the latter decides that she wants to stop, it has to stop.
What does this have to do with anything? Your posts just reek of "b-b-b-b-but men can be victims too, stop talking so much about the women!" despite no one ever denying that.
You're touching on a much finer point than what's being discussed by the others.
If it were technologically possible to address your point, then the law would try to do so in turn.
Sure, but if that's true and there's a body of evidence that indicates that black lives are actually treated with less importance then there should be a push to redress the balance no?
Interestingly, in U.K. law, a woman cannot rape
I don't think anyone would reasonably deny that's an awful thing to do. Not sure what it has to do with the issue of consent in regards to this case.
Yup, the legislator had the stupidity to put "penis" in the definition. I can't translate it properly but in France the definition is : All penetration, by any means, committed on someone else or the author himself by violence, coercion, surprise or threat.
PS: I assume that a couple of words will raise eyebrows.
I have never accused anyone on here of denying that? It's just another, clearly unpopular, point of view which I dare to point out.
well, the man's consent to sex may have been immediately withdrawn the moment he had known that the woman was not on contraceptives, especially if he doesn't want kids?
If a man is stupid enough to think pulling out works as a strategy instead of using contraception, he deserves the STDs or babies that come with it.
Anyone left to dispute the vomit-inducing properties of this thread?
I agree. But apparently the girl in the BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457) also believed she wouldn't get pregnant unless the man came in her, thus giving consent to penetration in the first place. She forgets that pre-cum can also cause pregnancies.
Sure, as long as we don't push it too far to the other side we start to unknowingly discriminate against the other races in favour of black lives. A balance is needed, but ultimately, hard to find.
We just have to be careful as a society, that's all.
That's odd. So you think it shouldn't be a choice between one or the other...yet your glib response was supporting a tweet about the explixit choice of one or the other?
Last edited:
If a man and a woman having sex, both, at the same time, express a desire to stop having sex, then surely they'd just stop having sex?
What an utterly moronic attempt at undermining the situation.
If that's food for thought then we're all gonna fecking die of starvation.
Perhaps you have better situational examples of a guy being raped you want add to the discussion? I'm all ears.
That's not a rape. The issue here is that you seem to not know what a rape is, the deception that you have described is punishable by law but it's not a rape.
Generally, I'm fine just calling out the shit that you're posting but I'll leave this for your food for thought on not being allowed to pull out and lied to about contraception. If you put your fecking cock into something the responsibility to ensure no one gets pregnant lies 100% with you and your dick. Blaming someone else is weak and stupid. Trusting someone else in such a situation outside of a marriage or engagement is even dumber.
Um, I believe that sexual consent based on false premises is rape. If the guys had known the whole truth and would not have consented to sex in the first place, then it is. There was no chance to object.
Similar to the article above, if the girl had known that the man would not pull out as agreed prior to sex, she would never have agreed to sex in the first place. She did not have a chance to object and thus it is rape.
Sure, but I'm looking at it objectively at a POV trying to keep the law equal for men and women. Having the person with the dick take 100% responsibility is not equal. It takes two to tango after all.
The past few posts do not reflect my personal views. I am not looking to put down anybody and i completely realise it is a sensitive subject. But I do wonder if there are some things in life which can never be truly equal.
No, the viewpoint isn't unpopular, the people feeling the need to bring it up when a specific incident triggers a discussion about men raping women are what's unpopular.
No, it's not the deception that makes it a rape. In that article they tell you that the judges wrote that the man was controlling and aggressive during sex these two things without consent are constitution of a rape but she gave her consent at the express condition that he withdraw before ejaculation which he didn't do, they interpreted the entire situation as a rape because of his behavior as a whole.
In the scenario that you gave, the woman needs to have physical control of your body or/and show aggressiveness, she also need to expressly know the conditions within which you are willing to have sex and voluntarily break them.
In that case, yes. Sexual interaction can never be truly equal. 999 times out of 1000 the male partner can physically restrain the female partner and penetrate her at will. As a result, the law might be required to be somewhat unbalanced.
My previous examples were not intended to make up the legal code but a man's individual code wherein he thinks with his brain and not his balls in order to stay out of trouble.
I see nobody has joked about Messi yet.
Man, if this is liberal cafe, I don't want to imagine what people are discussing in conservative cafe.
I would say that if a girl purposefully lied to a guy about contraception, knowing full well the guy would have said no if she didn't take it, and the proceeded to have sex under false premises... That, to me, is a voluntary break of the agreed conditions.
On the first point, I'm not sure how 'aggressiveness during sex' is ever going to be adequately judged by an outsider but I guess there's now precedence for it. I mean, there is always going to be one person taking the lead in sex, whether it's the guy or the girl. Often it interchanges between the two parties during a single session of sex, and some girls are rather insane when they take the lead...
To me, the voluntary break of conditions is more damning, hence why I think it held more weight and why I think my example could be classed as rape.
I agree with your individual code so no worries there.
The bolded bit is the bit that makes me somewhat uncomfortable. It just doesn't sit right in my head in this age of equality.
Anyway, enough of this. I'm off to moan about Mourinho
The issue here is that you give too much weight to your own opinion, in the context of justice no one cares about it. You used an article to justify your opinion without taking into account what actually motivated the judge's decision, basically it's what they deemed "as a manifestation of his control over her.", if you go out of that fact this precedent doesn't work. To make it clear it's not the ejaculation that constitute the rape, nor the deception, it's the entire situation that was deemed to be an attempt at demonstrating domination.
Edit: For what it's worth you would have a case for theft and embezzlement.
So the other way round, if a male says he'll wear a condom then doesn't, it is rape. That's covered in caselaw, weirdly enough Assange v Sweden (yes that one).
I'm unaware of case law the other way round, but I would imagine the CPS would be able to argue for causing sexual activity without consent (this is the offence we use for a "female raping someone," and can be punished with life imprisonment if penetration is involved).
So yes I imagine there would be a Court case, it just wouldn't be rape due to weird wording of UK law
Well to say no one cares is not true. A voluntary break of conditions is obviously one of two major points deciding that case. I would think it played a strong part in 'manifesting his control over her' in the sense that he tricked her into saying yes.
Thanks for that. Hopefully you do study law and its very interesting to see a live example of the current imbalance in the law.
Absolutely agree with the bolded, that would be classed as rape and consistent with the case mentioned above.
I don't study law. I'm a Police Officer who deals with sexual offences. I've only had one dealing with a "female rape" case, and it wasn't in the context of lying about contraception or anything along those lines so I am genuinely clueless as to if there is a precedent.
The issue is that you think that you can take an element of a precedent out of context and end up with the same conclusion. That's wrong because you are not respecting the jurisprudence, you are making up a different situation that doesn't exist, that hasn't been judged and that you didn't extensively contextualized.
I'm not making shit up out of context. The main point of the rape conviction was the deprivation of choice which negated her initial consent.
Direct quotes from the article:
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Fulford and Mr Justice Sweeney at a High Court hearing in London, added: "She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based.
Accordingly her consent was negated.
"Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina.
"In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape."
Seriously you can't pick and choose quotes it's something very important in the context of a decision, you have to take the entire decision.
Just an example he said "I'll do it if I want", that's why the judges understand that he did it deliberately and in an attempt to manifest his control over her, they also stated that he was aggressive and controlling during sex. It's the entire context that you and I quoted that motivated the decision not an isolated point, that's why they concluded that the combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape. The word combination is important.
Yes it was a combination of various things, I don't and have never disagreed. But from the closing statement, clearly: 1) the deprivation of choice, 2) negation of consent and 3) a consideration of the possible withdrawal of consent if the truth had been known, heavily influenced the final verdict. These judicial statements can all be applied to the case where a woman manipulates a man into sex based on false premises, and therefore such cases should be considered on the grounds of rape. Also, I have also argued that it is possible for a woman to exhibit 'aggressive and controlling' behaviour during sex. It's not just a man thing.
This is absurd, impractical, offensive to victims and would be impossible to sort out.
Explicit denial of consent and people having sex with a partner that lied about something are two very different things. They should not be confused.