Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by EC)
    If the pleasure wasn't there, it would have been quite clear. But considering that the reaction of the human body could even give you an orgasm even if you didn't consent to the sexual intercourse, it's questionable either way.

    The entry is the tricky part here, since person A didn't consider it at all and it was not a predictable scenario at all considering the fight and the desire to end things for good. By law it is rape, I was just considering the other factors.

    .
    You are confusing yourself. The issue is nohing to do with pleasure. IT is to do with consent. Work out whether consent existed at the time of penetration. Ise the definition I gave you and its easy to decide if it was rape or not. If you didnt consent and they knew or had no reasonable belief you did consent then its rape whether you had a million orgasams after.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, 100%. I don't even know why this should be a question? Not only was she restrained against her will, but then she said no and fought back to hs attempt at penetrating her. Definite RAPE!!

    The fact she enjoyed it at the end merely the means the rapist is likely to not get prosecuted for his offence. That is all.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Recont)
    So technically girl can enjoy time with you and then report you for raping because she claims that she said stop?
    All you are saying is its possible a girl could lie about being raped. Is that it?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    All you are saying is its possible a girl could lie about being raped. Is that it?
    Yes
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    a) s2 Sexual Offences Act 2003.

    b) s3 Sexual Offences Act 2003.

    c) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm is the one I was thinking of.

    See the line "Between 1997 and (2000) a total of 14 women were charged with rape in London alone" to show it's not a unique case.
    Thank you.

    a) Lets paste Section 2 of the sexual offences act and have a look at it.

    Assault by penetration

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
    (b)the penetration is sexual,
    (c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

    If you notice this definition is very similar to that for rape. For a person to be guilty of assault by penetration...they have to be a HE. The law describes both A and B very clearly. A is the perp and A has to be a he. It is very similar to the definition of rape in section 1 and it suffers from the same problems. It is gendered and sexist. Its important to note here that convictions in this country are sometimes not solely based on legislation. They can also be based on rulings from previous judgments and can be subject to a judge's discretion. So convictions are not all black and white but legislation is the major component and the rape legislation is sexist.

    ...................

    b) lets paste section three below and have a look at it.

    Sexual assault

    A person (A) commits an offence if—
    1. (a) he intentionally touches another person (B)
    2. (b) the touching is sexual
    3. (c) B does not consent to the touching, and
    4. (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.


    Again you have the same problem with this law. The perp must be a HE to be charged with this crime. The legislation is sexist.

    ........................

    c) The prosecution managed to successfully argue that she raped the girl because she forcefully allowed a 'he's' penis to penetrate the girl this fits perfectly with the definition for rape in UK law. The rape law states that for someone to be charged with rape they have to be a he, they have to penetrate without consent and they have to do this with a penis....the prosecution managed to successfully argue that this girl ticked all these boxes because she managed to do all those things. So she was successfully charged with rape. Her case is unconventional. This does not change the fact that the laws remain sexist. Had she raped that girl by herself she would not have been charged with rape. Had she forcefully enveloped a penis with an orifice she would not have been charged with rape. The laws are sexist. This is not even subject to debate. Take Vanessa George as an example. She is perhaps one of the worst serial pedophiles in UK history. She is thought to have raped between 30 and 300 infants. Despite RAPING these infants she was not charged with rape but sexual assault because she is a woman, because she is a she and not a he.

    The law is sexist by definition irrespective of whether or not in some rare cases with exceptional circumstances women have been charged with rape. Like I stated before, the law in this country is not always black and white. In the majority of sexual assaults, women are not charged with rape thanks to our sexist laws. Also, you might want to note that conviction rates for women who commit sexual assaults are roughly 20% lower than those for men.

    There is an issue of double standards, misandry and sexism with rape laws in this country. Male rape was not recognised until 1994, roughly 150 years after the recognition of female rape and when it was recognised as being rape it was only considered rape when a man raped another man. Female rape of males and children is not recognised as rape to this day. Not just in the UK but in many other countries too, like 'Israel' for example where feminist groups recently managed to cancel a law that would see women charged with rape.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    It depends what definition of conviction rate is used. I looked into it last time when you were expressing your outrage. Other crimes are more straightforward in getting to courtand there is less of a weeding out process. All I got from last time was you are massively angry with women and feminists.
    There is only one definition my friend. Sometimes feminist organisations like Rape Crisis falsely mask attrition rates as conviction rates in order to spread myths about rape that are very far from the truth.

    Have a read through this article and inform yourself in this regard:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nviction-rates

    Importantly, conviction rates for sexual assaults are 20% lower for women than they are for men and women cannot even be charged with rape in this country let alone be convicted of it. So please stop enforcing rape myths. Stop enforcing the idea that women are victims. They are not. They are in a state of privilege in every aspect of life, even in this issue of rape.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    There is only one definition my friend. Sometimes feminist organisations like Rape Crisis falsely mask attrition rates as conviction rates in order to spread myths about rape that are very far from the truth.

    Have a read through this article and inform yourself in this regard:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nviction-rates

    Importantly, conviction rates for sexual assaults are 20% lower for women than they are for men and women cannot even be charged with rape in this country. So please stop enforcing the idea that women are victims. They are not. They are in a state of privilege in every aspect of life, even in this issue of rape.
    We had all this before. I went and looked at the actual figures from the ONS you were being very manipulative with the figures. There isnt only one definition, its simply important to understand what you mean by it. I am capable of understanding and appreciating both.

    You made your resentment towards women quite clear the last time and the time before and the time before that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The fact you did a quick search and read your beliefs into them is funny seeing as you're reading them for the first time. Don't try and change it to 'severe drunkenness'.

    I said drunken consent is still consent.

    You presented a very black and white situation. You said 'everytime you have sex with your drunk and consenting partner, you're raping her'...

    So I can assume that your partner is heavily drunk whenever you have sex with her which is kind of sad.

    You then say this but all you've shown is that 'drunken consent is still consent' which is WHAT I QUOTED from the Judge's ruling.

    'The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
    In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape.


    However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.'


    You failed hard and are left trying to change the goalposts but that fallacy isn't working right now, sorry m8.

    When did your consenting partner suddenly not voluntarily take the alcohol and become very heavily drunk? LMAO more goalposting changing

    Also, this isn't law not 'guess the hints'

    Again, you failed hard. It's funny how you call me a 'rapey f***' even though you think having sex with a heavily drunk person who didn't take the alcohol voluntarily is okay? LMAO

    Also what has this got to do with me quoting the judge's ruling? I quote you:

    'So believe it or not, rape cases involving drunken consent aren't black and white. Making your post "You do know drunken consent is valid consent right? lmao" a complete and utter fallacy.'

    Sorry how is the fact that rape cases involving drunken consent are not being black and white make my post a fallacy? It's a ruling. Get over it.

    Again, you failed very hard. So I'll repeat it for you because your slow.

    - You realised you messed up
    - You went to go read the Act because you've never seen it before
    - You 'read between the lines' just like psychopaths do when they want justification
    - You convinced yourself you were right
    - You looked at the black and white case and then said 'not all cases involving drunken consent are black and white'
    - You then concluded that your self-proclaimed fact overruled the Judge's ruling and made my post a fallacy.

    LMAO, you really are in a state. Are you sure you're not drunk? dumb rapist.
    Wow look at how hard you're trying and still making an absolute tit out of yourself hahaha. You can even form coherent arguments.

    The fact you've even resorted to editing quotes to try and fit your argument is pathetic. I said that that hypothetically speaking, sleeping with your drunk partner could technically be considered rape.

    And you haven't actually countered any of the points. All you keep saying is "hurr duur changing the goalposts" and ad-homien attacks (poor ones at that).


    "Again, you failed hard. It's funny how you call me a 'rapey f***' even though you think having sex with a heavily drunk person who didn't take the alcohol voluntarily is okay? LMAO".

    Did you even attempt to proof read this you incoherent mess?

    Please show me where I said having sex with a heavily drunk person who didn't take alcohol voluntarily is okay? Nice attempt at a strawman though, clearly clutching at straws lel.

    "Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious".


    Don't worry about my partner though. Judging by your use of "you failed hard" and "LMAO" after every line thinking you're edgy then I can only assume you're still a virgin :lol: a creepy one that apparently has the Sexual Offences Act memorized for whatever perverse reason :rofl::rofl:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    this is confusing.

    your op is about wanting sex.
    then you start making posts about 'wanting to like and be attracted to the guy' - well why would you have sex with someone you don't like and aren't attracted to?

    look if you want a boyfriend, GET a boyfriend LMAO
    if you want a hookup, then go get your hookup but you'll regret it later.

    i mean it's not like it's gonna last longer than a minute anyway.
    Spoken like a true virgin.


    Sorry, maybe that's a lil harsh. Sexually inexperienced youngster who doesn't hasn't had any experience of sex outwith what he's seen in movies? Gheez no wonder you're so angsty :mmm:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    We had all this before. I went and looked at the actual figures from the ONS you were being very manipulative with the figures.
    How did I manipulate the figures?

    For anyone wandering what this person is referring to please go to this thread:

    https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...rimary_content

    I challenge anyone to find a single example of me manipulating ANY figures.

    (Original post by 999tigger)
    There isnt only one definition
    Yes there is and I proved that to you with the article that i referenced in my previous comment, which explains the difference between what you think is a conviction rate, which in actual fact is an attrition rate, and real conviction rates.

    Here it is again. Just incase you missed it last time:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nviction-rates

    (Original post by 999tigger)
    its simply important to understand what you mean by it. I am capable of understanding and appreciating both.
    I question your ability to understand, appreciate and accept anything that does not conform with your subjective opinions, anything that challenges your status quo and your sexist female supremacist feminist doctrine.

    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You made your resentment towards women quite clear the last time and the time before and the time before that.
    This is a lot like saying the civll rights movement was resentful towards 'whites' for wanting equality for 'blacks'. Standing up for the rights of men and against sexism is not resentment towards women but resentment towards sexism.

    Conviction rates for sexual assaults are significantly lower for women than they are for men and women cannot even be charged with rape in this country let alone be convicted of it yet you are trying to portray them as victims of a 'rape culture'. Clearly, if there was such a thing as a 'rape culture', women would be the ones benefiting from its ills and this needs to change...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EC)
    "Person A breaks up with Person B.

    Person B does not allow Person A to leave, which escalates into Person B physically restraining Person A.

    Person B begins to grope and then initiates sex with Person A. Person A does fight back and tell Person B to stop. This goes on for a while.

    Near the end of the act, Person A realizes they're enjoying some aspect of what is happening. Assume it's unknown to Person A exactly what they're feeling as it is happening, and feel free to conjecture on it.

    At the end of the act, Person A and Person B make up and remain together.

    Person A doesn't suffer through the feelings of betrayal of their trust, even though they did intend to end the relationship and did mean it when they asked Person B to stop. Even though Person B used physical coercion that Person A objected to at the moment that it happened--holding them down, pulling them by their hair, biting, face slapping--Person A looks back on the act specifically (that is to say, Person A is looking at this specific event and not just at the acts if they were to happen between two consenting adults) and feels aroused. Person A doesn't feel anger toward Person B for it." (this is a hypothetical situation taken from another site)

    -> one of the replies: "Both any physical response that would suggest enjoyment and any feeling of attachment can all happen with sex itself due to over flow of hormones and oxytocin, the bonding hormone. This is how many kidnapper rapists trap their victims and confuse them. The person may not feel anger or anything towards their rapist if they had a prior relationship. That combined with the hormone overflows can cause a false sense of attachment."

    Would you consider this rape? Why/why not?
    No rape is all ********.

    I have just seen a post about a husband being done for rape by his wife for not pulling out in time during sex.

    And I have come to the conclusion that rape is ******** most of the time.

    You're talking about algebraic constructs and rape. What if they enjoyed it but x y and z.

    This is like some kind of cult programming brainwashing epidemic.

    I think most people these days are just thoroughly brainwashed beyond belief.

    We will look back on his period of history.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chuquo2017)
    No rape is all ********.

    I have just seen a post about a husband being done for rape by his wife for not pulling out in time during sex.

    And I have come to the conclusion that rape is ******** most of the time.

    You're talking about algebraic constructs and rape. What if they enjoyed it but x y and z.

    This is like some kind of cult programming brainwashing epidemic.

    I think most people these days are just thoroughly brainwashed beyond belief.

    We will look back on his period of history.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What are you talking about?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    What are you talking about?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You could sum in up by saying no one has any common sense any more, and are brainwashed by some some kind of cult.

    We all know what rape is. It's as if progressives want to find 55 more forums of rape to punish men.

    Someone else posted in the news section a post about a husband charged with rape for not pulling out quick enough during sex because it was agreed.

    Soon some moron is going to propose that men be charged with rape is sex performed is a different specification to what was expected.

    Woman: I said give it to me hard and he lasted just 2 mins. He was satisfied and I hadn't ***.

    Degenerate liberal; Technically this breached the terms and conditions of the content therefore it's rape.

    Courts: populated by brainwashed semi morons

    Average bystander; oh yea the courts say this so it must be true

    Basically you can't have any sort of reasonable outcome when you have people that are as good as brainwashed by a space cult.







    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Recont)
    So technically girl can enjoy time with you and then report you for raping because she claims that she said stop?
    Yes, there can be false claims and I also see it's quite easy to do so. There have been cases and even if not prosecuted they can be sued for defamation of character.

    There were some groups of men who were requesting changes in the law around sexual assault to protect those who are the victims of false accusations.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    Spoken like a true virgin.


    Sorry, maybe that's a lil harsh. Sexually inexperienced youngster who doesn't hasn't had any experience of sex outwith what he's seen in movies? Gheez no wonder you're so angsty :mmm:
    Wait..what? What is this post? I couldn't find it in the thread, was it deleted? :lol: Wow. Well, to the person who wrote it:
    My OP isn't even about myself, I clearly said it's a fictional situation. This is absurdity and please don't ever say again what you think I may want or not. Making this about myself when it clearly wasn't. Funny.

    ''this is confusing.

    your op is about wanting sex.
    then you start making posts about 'wanting to like and be attracted to the guy' - well why would you have sex with someone you don't like and aren't attracted to?

    look if you want a boyfriend, GET a boyfriend LMAO
    if you want a hookup, then go get your hookup but you'll regret it later.

    i mean it's not like it's gonna last longer than a minute anyway. ''
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    If you notice this definition is very similar to that for rape. For a person to be guilty of assault by penetration...they have to be a HE.

    ..

    Again you have the same problem with this law. The perp must be a HE to be charged with this crime. The legislation is sexist.
    You are totally, completely and utterly wrong.

    See s6 of the Interpretation Act 1978: "In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, (a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
    (b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;"

    There are occasional exceptions where Parliament makes it clear that it really does only mean men (or women), but they are very rare. This isn't one of them.


    As far as 'rape' goes, it has long been felt that penetration with a penis is significantly different from penetration with anything else. We have a special word, virgin, to describe someone who's never had a penis in their vagina or put their penis in a vagina. You don't 'lose your virginity' by putting a finger inside someone, for example.

    Given that the maximum penalty for non-consensual penetration is the same regardless of what is used, I am a little unclear why you think there's a problem.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chuquo2017)
    Someone else posted in the news section a post about a husband charged with rape for not pulling out quick enough during sex because it was agreed.

    ...

    Basically you can't have any sort of reasonable outcome when you have people that are as good as brainwashed by a space cult.
    This is how I can be certain that you've never been on the receiving end of penetration.

    Consent to being penetrated may include '.. with a condom'. If you agree to me putting my penis inside you with a condom, would you really go 'whatever, that doesn't matter' if I didn't use one?

    Consent to being penetrated is not endless penetration. If you agree to me putting my penis inside you, I can't keep it there until one of us dies without your continuing consent. Every person who's been ****ed realises this.

    Basically what you want is a return to the way that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife: by agreeing to marry him, she was deemed to consent to be penetrated whenever, however, and as often he wanted. Only divorce or legal separation would end that presumed consent.

    In the case you're presumably talking about there was a very clear agreement between the two that he wouldn't ejaculate inside her. He deliberately did so and went on to apologise for "raping" her.

    TL;DR: Even rapists think you're wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripplea)
    Trauma bonding / Stockholm syndrome
    Thanks, but I already answered my question. It's just abuse and control. Stockholm syndrome isn't an actual fact, it's a theory. It's nothing to do with this scenario imo. As for the person that said it's not abuse because it's warranted, that's just the most ignorant thing I've ever read.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    You are totally, completely and utterly wrong.

    See s6 of the Interpretation Act 1978: "In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, (a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
    (b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;"

    There are occasional exceptions where Parliament makes it clear that it really does only mean men (or women), but they are very rare. This isn't one of them.
    Look at section 6 and try to apply it to sex as women have it with other people and tell me that the statement does not have 'contrary intention'. Change the word he to she in section 6 and see how much it makes sense. Lets do this together:

    A person commits an offence if SHE intentionally PENETRATES the VAGINA OR ANUS of another person with a part of HER body or anything else!!

    Be honest. Is this sexual assault as women do it? It is not. The word 'she' is out of place. This clearly gendered sexist definition was made for male perps and female or male victims. Even if you change the word 'he' to 'she' you would still have a problem because the definition winds up excluding most female perpetrators from prosecution. The female sexual assault would involve sex as women do it which revolves not around penetration but envelopment. this is a clearly a sexist gendered definition made for male perps and female victims. If you tell yourself anything else you would be lying to yourself. Please be fair.

    Additionally, you say that even though women cannot be charged with rape they can still be charged with a similar offence which holds a similar life sentence (which is not true as i explained above) and so everything is OK. It is not. Women who commit rape should be charged with RAPE. They do not deserve special treatment in this regard...if they were charged with any other crime it would be unequal treatment. Rape by definition should apply to everyone with equity. When it does not you have a problem....

    Would you be ok with these double standards if women were not benefiting from them? would you be OK with rape laws only applying to female perps and male victims? or would you prefer equality? equal treatment by the law of both genders?


    (Original post by unprinted)
    As far as 'rape' goes, it has long been felt that penetration with a penis is significantly different from penetration with anything else. We have a special word, virgin, to describe someone who's never had a penis in their vagina or put their penis in a vagina. You don't 'lose your virginity' by putting a finger inside someone, for example.
    It has long been felt to be significantly different? really? Is that why penetration by objects is considered rape? think about the contradiction in what you are saying my friend. You are trying to justify something that is unjustifiable...please stop enforcing this rape culture....rape is rape no matter who the victim or the perp is.

    We are talking about an act of forceful nonconsensual sex with another human being. Some definitions go so far as calling any nonconsensual sexual act with another person rape but in tis country this definition only applies to the benefit of women. In this country a woman cannot be charged with raping anyone simply because she is a woman. If a man forcefully and non-consensually inserts a finger into a vagina he is charged with rape. If a woman forcefully and non-consensually inserts a finger into a vagina of another woman she is not charged with rape. If a woman forcefully envelopes a penis with her vagina she is not charged with rape. I'm going to remind you of Vanessa George once again. This women , penetrated 30-300 infants with objects, she enveloped the private parts of 30-300 infants with her orifices. She stole the virginity of 30-300 babies both male and female. Yet she was not charged with rape simply because she is a woman. If you find these double standards acceptable and OK then i have nothing more to say to you...you clearly want to justify sexism no matter what.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Be honest. Is this sexual assault as women do it?
    In my experience, yes. Trying to stick a finger in your bum because some crap magazine or website says 'all men love..' is more common than I'd like.

    The female sexual assault would involve sex as women do it which revolves not around penetration but envelopment.
    Your idea that there are loads of women going around forcing men to penetrate them tells us far more about you than reality.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.