Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Men Could Be Convicted Of Rape 'even If The Woman Agrees To Have Sex'

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314469/Men-convicted-rape-woman-agrees-sex.html

Guilty if man does something woman asked him not

Test case was between husband and wife

Wife became pregnant - she did not want another child

A man could be convicted of rape even if the woman agreed to have sex, judges ruled yesterday.

A court headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, ruled in a sign-post decision that a man would still be guilty if he did something she asked him not to.

The High Court ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to think again over a decision not to prosecute a man accused of raping his wife.

The woman had consented to sex, but only on condition that her husband withdrew as she did not want to become pregnant.

However, at the last minute he told her he was not withdrawing and told her 'because you are my wife and I'll do it if I want'.

I know this is the wail and there's probably lots of spin, but if you didn't want to get pregnant relying on the withdrawal method is pretty stupid. He could have leaked before the final moment and impregnate her.

Is there far more to this story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314469/Men-convicted-rape-woman-agrees-sex.html

I know this is the wail and there's probably lots of spin, but if you didn't want to get pregnant relying on the withdrawal method is pretty stupid. He could have leaked before the final moment and impregnate her.

Is there far more to this story?

If he did say and do that then I think he's guilty of something - being a right *******, probably. But how and why did it ever make it as far as the legal system? How are they ever going to prove anything, one way or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did say and do that then I think he's guilty of something - being a right *******, probably. But how and why did it ever make it as far as the legal system? How are they ever going to prove anything, one way or the other?

youtube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time he's about to climax he may not have the self-control to withdraw. Surely any court with male (or heterosexual non-misandryst female) representation would understand that.

Must be something to do with attitudes exhibited away from the crucial moment. Does he run a website that embarrasses people in power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time he's about to climax he may not have the self-control to withdraw. Surely any court with male (or heterosexual non-misandryst female) representation would understand that.

Must be something to do with attitudes exhibited away from the crucial moment. Does he run a website that embarrasses people in power?

Stickyleaks? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Worked with Julian Assange didnt it?

We can all be enemies of the state now. If you have a *****, anyway. Harriet Harman has won.

That's the point though isn't it. Only men can penetrate so only men can rape. You could argue that the rape laws are actually sexist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Sex robots, perfect VR and eternal human loneliness can't come soon enough it seems for the powers that be.

Ah, I see you've met Mrs. Eight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this and it made me chuckle. Asking a fella to stop at the 'point of no return' :) ...well, there's no hope for me hehe

In this case, I believe it was more about context. What was said and done up to the act suggested this was premeditated - an intentional act of 'violence' or exerting control, hence the ruling. Sets a hell of a precedent though, in law and public opinion.

P

That's fine.. but don't call it rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensible.

Equally a woman who spits after oral sex ought to be open to a conviction of murdering sperm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine.. but don't call it rape.

That horse has firmly bolted. The Harfwit faction in its quest to demonise men has devalued rape, to a point where noone but them believes every 'rape' is really anything serious.

Must be harsh for victims of serious violent sexual crime to have their ordeal trivialised like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point though isn't it. Only men can penetrate so only men can rape. You could argue that the rape laws are actually sexist.

Could still be done under duress I suppose. Have sex with me or i'll shoot you or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you apply the logic used in this case, then if a woman tells a sexual partner she's on the pill when she is not it's rape becaise he was misled about the nature of their activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

So a woman couldn't wear a strap-on then?

Apparently the first inch is the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says something about the couple being god botherers and that the case hinges on whether or not their God's set of rules were broken.

Which strikes me as a bit weird: I thought the courts were there to enforce the laws that parliament had voted on, and nothing else.

Or am I just hopelessly naive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see what the fuss is - the guy forced himself on her without consent.

Otherwise ..:

Lord Judge said that men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for rape, adding: ‘These things happen – they always have and they always will.

‘No offence is committed when they do. They underline why withdrawal is not a safe method of contraception.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314469/Men-convicted-rape-woman-agrees-sex.html#ixzz2RUPcdiOS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not rape.

A friend of mine was doing an audit on the Sussex police computer. This kind of attack was classified as "forced rear entry". He pointed out this was normally for house not sex crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you apply the logic used in this case, then if a woman tells a sexual partner she's on the pill when she is not it's rape becaise he was misled about the nature of their activity.

Now wouldn't that be a turn up for the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a man is having consensual sex with a woman and the woman asks him to stop, and he continues, then this is rape. It seems fairly straightforward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a man is having consensual sex with a woman and the woman asks him to stop, and he continues, then this is rape. It seems fairly straightforward.

How do we prove that she asked him to stop? If it's just his word against hers then the case should be thrown out of court (or preferably never get to court).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 243 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.