Turn on thread page Beta

Would you consider this rape? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The Swiss Criminal code seems to define the term as "any person who forces a person of the female sex by threats or
    violence, psychological pressure or by being made incapable of resistance to submit to sexual intercourse is liable to a custodial sentence of from one to ten years" (source). By this definition, no, it should not have been considered rape.

    The prosecution mounted the case around the idea that she was incapable of resistance because she was unaware of the condom not being on. I do think that such an argument won't hold during an appeal process, even though a male's rights are more or less ignored during a rape case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wtf. How do you even not notice if someone removes the condom in front of you? It's your fault (to trust a stranger, anyway).

    Not rape. The sexual intercourse took place willingly, the circumstances in this case doesn't matter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone actually read the details of this?

    I doubt there's much congruency with England. This happened in Switzerland, and the man received a 12-month suspended sentence. It's entirely possible he was convicted of an offence which wouldn't be "rape" here. Possibly some related sexual offence here to do with causing sexual activity without consent or something.

    My own feeling is that would be the right decision here, too. I don't see that the act is substantially altered, and there's no such thing as completely risk free sex. If that happened here, I would be ok with someone being convicted of a lower offence.

    As for the reverse case - a woman not being on the pill. I don't see why it shouldn't be the same offence, but in practical terms, I see almost no situation where a conviction would occur. You can be obviously wearing a condom, but not obviously on the pill. The only situation I see a man making a criminal complaint is if a pregnancy results - in which case, the woman can still have the baby (if she wants to), a custodial sentence is almost impossible to contemplate, and he would still be financially liable. He could sue her, for damages, but if she has no means anyway, what exactly is the point?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mischeivous)
    Wtf. How do you even not notice if someone removes the condom in front of you? It's your fault (to trust a stranger, anyway).

    Not rape. The sexual intercourse took place willingly, the circumstances in this case doesn't matter.
    :facepalm:

    Oh dear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    :facepalm:

    Oh dear.
    what up
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So because you (somewhat rightly so) believe the line is hard to draw, you think no line should be drawn (other than sex yes or no, i.e. any other circumstances don't matter)?

    Would you want it to be illegal to lie to someone about being on the pill?
    I've not given it any thought, I'm just prompting people to think about things a little further

    Interesting ethical questions here
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Here are some articles to acknowledge -

    http://www.newstalk.com/Man-in-Switz...om-during-sex-

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/11/man-gu...woman-6375798/

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170...ng-condom-sex/

    If you didn't get that, a man and women met on Tinder which eventually lead to intercourse. The man decides to take off the condom during the act unbeknownst to the woman. I presume the woman took it to court asserting that she wouldn't have had sex with him without protection. What's your take on it?
    No it's not rape. Women lie about being on contraception all the time, and no one ever takes them to court.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    If it's judged to be rape, it could set a risky precedent. Condoms can often fall off during sex. When this happens, you'd become an accidental rapist.
    Unless you do something without clear consent, reasonably believing that no consent has been given, it isn't rape.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes its rape.

    Think about it people, she consented to sexual intercourse with a condom, she didn't consent to sexual intercourse without...

    If he had HIV or something, would people still be battling his corner ffs????

    Would we be having this discussion if he pulled out and decided to go up the 'other' way without her permission? I don't think consenting to sexual intercourse is the same as consenting to anything/everything.

    However with all this said, I think it would have to be 100000% sure that he did any of this against her will to warrant police action, too many people are willing to tell lies nowadays without a second thought of the potential to ruining someone elses life.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by loooopppyyy)
    Yes its rape.

    Think about it people, she consented to sexual intercourse with a condom, she didn't consent to sexual intercourse without...

    If he had HIV or something, would people still be battling his corner ffs????

    Would we be having this discussion if he pulled out and decided to go up the 'other' way without her permission? I don't think consenting to sexual intercourse is the same as consenting to anything/everything.

    However with all this said, I think it would have to be 100000% sure that he did any of this against her will to warrant police action, too many people are willing to tell lies nowadays without a second thought of the potential to ruining someone elses life.
    I saw some news article, a few weeks ago, about a rape where the rapist contracted HIV, and people were like 'The victim should have told him'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    No it's not rape. Women lie about being on contraception all the time, and no one ever takes them to court.
    Both circumstances are quite different. Lack of condom means exposure to potential STIs and HIV. This obviously does not apply to the pill.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Not rape but should still be an offence. It's a disgusting thing to do and could put the woman's health at risk from potential stds, not to mention unwanted pregnancy. If someone did that to me I would go to the police.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella-keturah)
    Not rape but should still be an offence. It's a disgusting thing to do and could put the woman's health at risk from potential stds, not to mention unwanted pregnancy. If someone did that to me I would go to the police.
    Not to mention some people are DEAD SET against abortion (myself included), I'm a 31 year old with a 5 year old daughter that lives with me full-time, so know how much work (rewarding work should I say ) raising a child can be, its unfair to put someone in that position 'unwillingly'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by habeas.corpus)
    Both circumstances are quite different. Lack of condom means exposure to potential STIs and HIV. This obviously does not apply to the pill.
    True, but bottom line is that she wasn't raped. If she got pregnant or got an STD then I'd maybe understand a lawsuit but then again, if she didn't want to risk either then she had no business having sex in the first place
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loooopppyyy)
    Not to mention some people are DEAD SET against abortion (myself included), I'm a 31 year old with a 5 year old daughter that lives with me full-time, so know how much work (rewarding work should I say ) raising a child can be, its unfair to put someone in that position 'unwillingly'.
    Exactly. It's just someone being selfish by removing the condom without consent, so there should be consequences if they do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    She was willingly having sex with him, though. It's just the removal of the condom that's the issue. Hmm, doesn't really sound like rape to me.

    If it's judged to be rape, it could set a risky precedent. Condoms can often fall off during sex. When this happens, you'd become an accidental rapist.

    Even if it was agreed upon beforehand, I'm still not entirely sure. She continued having sex with him and didn't notice? Okay, maybe. But that makes things trickier in court, and could again set some risky precedents concerning things agreed upon before having sex. Could this be a slippery slope? Would it be rape if a woman told me she'd only have sex with me with my socks off, but unbeknownst to her I leave them on?
    There was another thread the other day about a very similar case in the UK in which a man did not pull out before ejaculation, as he had previously agreed to do. The judges ruled it would be rape if those facts were true and that the case could go to trial, over-ruling the CPS decision.

    If this man agreed that sex would be protected and he removed the condom secretly then it would be rape (in the UK).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella-keturah)
    Exactly. It's just someone being selfish by removing the condom without consent, so there should be consequences if they do.
    Should there be consequences for women who lie about being on contraception? Should they have to raise the child on their own?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aerospengie)
    I've not given it any thought, I'm just prompting people to think about things a little further

    Interesting ethical questions here
    Well that's fair enough. And most often the right thing to do. People tend to have a very black and white view and don't think beyond that constraint.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Should there be consequences for women who lie about being on contraception? Should they have to raise the child on their own?
    Yes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Here are some articles to acknowledge -

    http://www.newstalk.com/Man-in-Switz...om-during-sex-

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/11/man-gu...woman-6375798/

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170...ng-condom-sex/

    If you didn't get that, a man and women met on Tinder which eventually lead to intercourse. The man decides to take off the condom during the act unbeknownst to the woman. I presume the woman took it to court asserting that she wouldn't have had sex with him without protection. What's your take on it?
    It's quite a difficult issue to judge, according to British Law

    Rape;

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

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

    (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

    (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

    (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

    They definitely consented to the penetration, so not rape. However should be guilty of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent;


    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
    (b)the activity is sexual,
    (c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
    (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
    (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
    (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
    (a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
    (b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
    (c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
    (d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
    (5)Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
    (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
    (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

    Under 1(c)(d) and 4(a)

    (Original post by Jeniecechantelle)
    rape by deception perhaps,
    but for this she would have had to at least expressively stated that was a condition for the sex they had
    What is rape by deception? I'm not being simple (well I am) but I mean is it a more sensible definition than the only one I've heard so far which is if they lie and tell you they have a ferrari or a million pounds or whatever (if people factor that in they're shallow and deserve to be lied to)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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

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