Is "accidental penetration" rape?

Have some perspective. If someone was forcing themselves on a woman and penetrating them, many would be too shocked to do anything about it. "Who wouldn't notice a penis inside them" is a weak point as it's evidentially traumatising for them. It's extremely easy to tell whether someone is enjoying sex or not by their facial expression, you certainly do not need to be a mind reader to decipher it. But, even then, one simple verbal statement such as "how are you feeling" gives a more conclusive response. If she says "no" or remains silent, you can be certain you're doing something extremely unjust.

There are no excuses. This is non-consensual and consequently, it is rape.

The scenario is ridiculous and not worth arguing over. However, I will point out that freezing is a common reaction to a traumatic event. That is why making sure one actually has consent is good for everyone. Putting your penis inside someone and assuming it's probably fine is stupid, especially when they've already definitely said they didn't want that. Which according to the OP they did.*

someone is naturally going to assume: "Oh, I guess she's okay with it then. Must've changed her mind. Great, I'll keep going."

So she was perfectly fine with him rubbing his penis all over her bare vagina, but suddenly became so traumatised when it went in that she was physically unable to communicate any form of rejection. Err, okay...

The fact that he did inform her after of the penetration is confirmation he knew, which you put together with you know the only issue on consent was that he knew she had expressly not given it.

where is "continued" penetration in the case law that I referred to though? if it doesn't apply to the OP (which I didn't read all of) then...then why are you saying this about the possibility of my case law not applying? did *you* not read all of the opening post as well?

So she was perfectly fine with him rubbing his penis all over her bare vagina, but suddenly became so traumatised when it went in that she was physically unable to communicate any form of rejection. Err, okay... Well, according to the description, she wasn't even aware, anyway. Most of what I'm arguing concerns what her partner would be thinking and why he didn't stop.

If someone says they don't want something, then it happens, but then they don't say anything and appear to just go along with it, it's not beyond comprehension that someone is naturally going to assume: "Oh, I guess she's okay with it then. Must've changed her mind. Great, I'll keep going."

But yes, this scenario does seem too ridiculous and unlikely. I'd have so many more questions if I was made privy to this (in real life).

To make this short, I'll bullet point this situation..

1. A man and woman are in bed, kissing and such.
2. The girl made it VERY clear she did not want to have sex with the man
3. She however, agreed to him rubbing his penis on her vagina
4. They do that, but at some point, it slips inside and the man does not stop having sex...
5. The woman is unaware that it slipped inside but is informed by the man, after he ejaculates, that he did penetrate her.

IS THIS RAPE? What are your thoughts?

It's not up to you to decide whether another's trauma as a result of penetration is justified or not. If a person explicitly says they do not want penetration, then they have a right to be traumatised, to emotionally react. Whether you think that's ridiculous or not quite frankly is irrelevant. Many people don't consent to penetration because of cultural/ religious beliefs, but consent to many other forms of sexual activity. You may think that's stupid, but that makes no difference to the case. That fine line that determines sexual intercourse can cause distress if unwillingly crossed. You have no right to tell another whether their beliefs or emotional reactions to non-consensual activity are wrong.

Rape doesn't work that way, it's not a case of 'well you didn't say you didn't want it!'. Nice try though.

To make this short, I'll bullet point this situation..

1. A man and woman are in bed, kissing and such.
2. The girl made it VERY clear she did not want to have sex with the man
3. She however, agreed to him rubbing his penis on her vagina
4. They do that, but at some point, it slips inside and the man does not stop having sex...
5. The woman is unaware that it slipped inside but is informed by the man, after he ejaculates, that he did penetrate her.

IS THIS RAPE? What are your thoughts?

Your comment just traumatised me.

While it would be unethical to automatically discount potential traumatisation, the plausibility of it does factor in, otherwise it could be claimed whenever it's convenient and would have to go completely unchallenged, even if it was a lie. We also can't assume that there was traumatisation on someone else's behalf, which is exactly what you're doing.

Plus, are you forgetting that in this entirely made-up scenario that she is unaware of the penetration? As unrealistic as that sounds, in the scenario we are arguing over she couldn't have frozen due to traumatisation, anyway, because she was unaware.

There are different forms of content, and people's minds and feelings change as things play out. You can communicate verbally that you don't want something beforehand, but then later on physically communicate that you're okay with it. Her partner could have interpreted her apparent lack of reaction as a form of passive consent. I.e. she was cool with him rubbing his penis on her bare vagina, and although she said she didn't want penetration earlier on, now she's apparently cool with him being inside her. Of course we know she didn't know his penis was inside, but the guy could quite easily believe that she'd changed her mind. For all we know this guy would never even dream of raping someone, buy suddenly he's committed a major criminal offense because of poor communication during sex and a bizarrely numb vagina.

5. The woman is unaware that it slipped inside but is informed by the man, after he ejaculates, that he did penetrate her.

I don't think you can make a sound judgement on the limited info given.

For example, what it, after penetration, she had encouraged him by saying "oh yeah, don't stop. That feels good." etc?

She might have thought he was still outside. He might have thought she was consenting to penetration. Would he have reasonable belief that she did not consent then?

I disagree. We CAN make a sound judgement based on the info given. It's just that the scenario given doesn't give other scenarios where consent can be assumed and therefore not rape.

But what about my suggested extra details? Without knowing whether something like that did or didn't happen, can we make a sound judgement? That's why police interviews or court cases have to go through these details so finely.

If nothing like I suggested occurred, it definitely pushes things towards rape. But we need full information to be sure.