|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stealthing: Some People are Just Shit
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Had never heard of this vile practice. Stealthing
For those who do not wish to read the link, stealthing is removing a condom during sex without one's partner's knowledge or consent.
Those that do this should have their testicles connected to a car battery.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Certainly not going to argue...
You have those 'alpha' men groups who think women are there to be picked up for their pleasure and run pick-up seminars...not a big stretch to 'men who think it is their “right” to “spread their seed” with every woman they have sex with.' And, again, the Internet helps facilitate these pathetic morons.
Absolutely appalling.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There was a recent case in NSW where that was held to be rape - consent had been given for 1 act and another was committed. Much the same as allowing a kiss on the cheek and then being groped claiming that all was the same.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I might just have to chalk this up as another one of those things that makes zero sense to me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Something else for the ever-growing "Selfish and stupid" file.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
stealthing is removing a condom during sex without one's partner's knowledge or consent.
Why would anyone want to do such a thing? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Just one of many reasons why I always think young women should never trust anyone but themselves when it comes to birth control. They are the ones with the most to risk and the ones with the most reliable methods.
STD prevention is another story and lying, loser, stealth jerk prevention is still another one.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure the guys doing these are the same awful manosphere misogynists who also believe that women are out to steal their semen to get deliberately pregnant with a child the man doesn't want and then force him to pay child support forever.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Karl--
It's slipping it off secretly, without the partner's knowledge and consent, that's bad.
Sort of the reverse of what Sweden accused Julian Assange of doing. There, it's illegal to not use a condom, even if the partner fully consents ahead of time. IIRC, it might be considered sexual assault.
I presume that doesn't apply if an opposite-sex couple wants to get pregnant.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm pretty sure the guys doing these are the same awful manosphere misogynists who also believe that women are out to steal their semen to get deliberately pregnant with a child the man doesn't want and then force him to pay child support forever.
No doubt there is some of that, but then there actually have been women who lied about being on the pill.
That's why I think it's not a good idea to call these incidents rape. Would the pill-lying woman be charged with rape and would her victim have to pay child-support to his rapist? They need a new crime called, "stealthing."
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because some people dislike using them.
Sadly I suspect it has little to do with like or dislike and everything to do with over-exposure to certain common forms of pornography.
Without wanting to get too graphic, it is about power and seeing the woman as a used-up sexual object that the testosterone-filled man has been able to overcome.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Sort of the reverse of what Sweden accused Julian Assange of doing. There, it's illegal to not use a condom, even if the partner fully consents ahead of time. IIRC, it might be considered sexual assault.
I think that's very likely an oversimplification otherwise children wouldn't be conceived in Sweden.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why I think it's not a good idea to call these incidents rape. Would the pill-lying woman be charged with rape and would her victim have to pay child-support to his rapist? They need a new crime called, "stealthing."
I think it is fairly clear that it is a form of sexual assault. There are reasons why someone might want to use a condom, if someone has willfully chosen to take it off without the other person knowing then they're doing something that hasn't been consented to in advance.
I'm not sure that is really so far from rape. At very least it is a willful disregard of the other person and forcing them to do something physically that they haven't agreed to - and may not agree to if asked.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why I think it's not a good idea to call these incidents rape. Would the pill-lying woman be charged with rape and would her victim have to pay child-support to his rapist? They need a new crime called, "stealthing."
I think it is fairly clear that it is a form of sexual assault. There are reasons why someone might want to use a condom, if someone has willfully chosen to take it off without the other person knowing then they're doing something that hasn't been consented to in advance.
I'm not sure that is really so far from rape. At very least it is a willful disregard of the other person and forcing them to do something physically that they haven't agreed to - and may not agree to if asked.
It's not so very far from rape, but it's not rape. Ask any woman who has been raped if this is as bad. Why dilute rape into something like this which is wrong and should criminalized, but is a different, lesser crime.
We already have problems with the label, "child sex offender," covering everything from two teens having sex to an old man raping a five year old. The trouble with the same labeled crime covering too broad a spectrum is that then the offender can hope people think he's in the lesser category. Once this law passed, all the convicted rapists could claim it was just a case of a broken rubber.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Karl--
It's slipping it off secretly, without the partner's knowledge and consent, that's bad.
Yeah, I know. I'm just suggesting one possible motivation for it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's not so very far from rape, but it's not rape. Ask any woman who has been raped if this is as bad. Why dilute rape into something like this which is wrong and should criminalized, but is a different, lesser crime.
Wait. Please don't tell me I'm diluting rape. Take that back immediately.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We already have problems with the label, "child sex offender," covering everything from two teens having sex to an old man raping a five year old. The trouble with the same labeled crime covering too broad a spectrum is that then the offender can hope people think he's in the lesser category. Once this law passed, all the convicted rapists could claim it was just a case of a broken rubber.
Nope, because using a condom diligently and having it break is something that happens sometimes and is unfortunate. But it's not the same thing as sneakily taking the thing off deliberately.
Obviously convicted rapists aren't going to be upfront about what led to their conviction. Right now the tiny minority of rapists who actually get convicted generally claim that the lying bitch wanted it anyway and then cried rape after. And a good number of people think that about every single rape anyway. This is why we don't base laws on "what the criminal will say actually happened".
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that's very likely an oversimplification otherwise children wouldn't be conceived in Sweden.
As I recall, in the Assange case, the allegation is that at least one woman consented to sex with a condom, but Assange didn't wear one. It's basically the same as "stealthing" - consent to condom-sex does not imply consent to nocondom-sex.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape.
Just so long as you apply the same standard to a woman who lies about being on the pill, or who stops using the pill without telling her partner because she wants a baby but he doesn't.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just so long as you apply the same standard to a woman who lies about being on the pill, or who stops using the pill without telling her partner because she wants a baby but he doesn't.
Not sure whether those are quite the same. (Genuinely not sure.)
The condom is part of the sex. You can consent, or not, to any particular sexual practice, and consent to one doesn't imply consent to another.
The pill, the fact that you've had a vasectomy or tubal ligation - these things are not part of the sex, although they obviously alter the potential consequences of the sex.
But are they any different from "I really love you", "Yes, I'll marry you", "I'm leaving my spouse" or any of the other lies that people tell to gain sex?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The pill, the fact that you've had a vasectomy or tubal ligation - these things are not part of the sex, although they obviously alter the potential consequences of the sex.
But are they any different from "I really love you", "Yes, I'll marry you", "I'm leaving my spouse" or any of the other lies that people tell to gain sex?
Yes, if a pregnancy occurs. Suddenly it's not a roll in the hay, it's a child (unless you abort).
If I ever found out I'd been "stealthed" (VERY unlikely these days!), I'd be tempted to ask in all innocence afterwards, "Oh, didn't I tell you about my STD/HIV/Herpes (or whatever)?" There are risks to the scumbag male as well.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Pigwidgeon
Who is to say the other lies do not lead to pregnancy? I refer you to the definition of informed consent. It is important as without being properly informed a person cannot give consent.
I am going to exit now as I am not sure I can engage helpfully further than this.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
You're right rape is rape. All those conditions you named, the woman was asleep, the woman was drunk, are rape because the definition of rape is intercourse without consent.
The man in the stealth situation does not fit the definition of rape because he had consent for intercourse.
He did not have consent about the birth control/ disease prevention issue, but that's another issue.
It's exactly the same as the woman who says she has an IUD when she doesn't. In both situations they have agreed to a certain condition of one person's body that turns out to be a lie, but that isn't rape. He didn't get raped if she had a disease she didn't tell him about, either.
This deliberate stealthing should be against the law and may already be covered under some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, but it isn't rape. The couple consented to have sex. If some part of the sex act was not as promised that makes him a liar but not a rapist.
You do dilute the definition of rape if you try to call all less than pre-planned conditions, "rape," after intercouse has been consented to. What next? He promised me an orgasm and I didn't have one, so it was not the sort of sex I consented to, so it was rape?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There is a reasonable discussion to be had without that slippery slope bullshit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
The slippery slope bullshit was started by the person I was answering, with all that inference that if I didn't think this was rape then I must be one of those people who think sex with a drunk woman isn't rape. "Right?" Of course anyone who disagrees with the L person is subject to being accused of saying all sorts of things he/she clearly did not say.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wait. Please don't tell me I'm diluting rape. Take that back immediately.
I don't know what you look like, Mr. Cheesy, but whenever you say something like that I picture
this guy.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
You're right rape is rape. All those conditions you named, the woman was asleep, the woman was drunk, are rape because the definition of rape is intercourse without consent.
The man in the stealth situation does not fit the definition of rape because he had consent for intercourse.
He did not have consent about the birth control/ disease prevention issue, but that's another issue.
It's exactly the same as the woman who says she has an IUD when she doesn't. In both situations they have agreed to a certain condition of one person's body that turns out to be a lie, but that isn't rape. He didn't get raped if she had a disease she didn't tell him about, either.
This deliberate stealthing should be against the law and may already be covered under some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, but it isn't rape. The couple consented to have sex. If some part of the sex act was not as promised that makes him a liar but not a rapist.
You do dilute the definition of rape if you try to call all less than pre-planned conditions, "rape," after intercouse has been consented to. What next? He promised me an orgasm and I didn't have one, so it was not the sort of sex I consented to, so it was rape?
Liopleurodon is on the wrong side of this. Twilight has it right.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just so long as you apply the same standard to a woman who lies about being on the pill, or who stops using the pill without telling her partner because she wants a baby but he doesn't.
Not sure whether those are quite the same. (Genuinely not sure.)
The condom is part of the sex. You can consent, or not, to any particular sexual practice, and consent to one doesn't imply consent to another.
Yes. So surely one can consent to a non-procreative sexual practice without implying consent to a procreative one.
(within the known limitations of contraception, of course)
quote:
The pill, the fact that you've had a vasectomy or tubal ligation - these things are not part of the sex, although they obviously alter the potential consequences of the sex.
I think considering only the physical presence of a condom without also considering the reason for it being worn is unnecessarily reductionistic.
quote:
But are they any different from "I really love you", "Yes, I'll marry you", "I'm leaving my spouse" or any of the other lies that people tell to gain sex?
Good question. The way things are going, the legality of lying for sex is something that society is going to have to decide on fairly soon.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
It is, perhaps, at least serious sexual assault; in that the woman has consented to have sex, but not the kind of sex she ends up having imposed upon her unbeknown. And legally, too, it could potentially be the thinnest of lines between that and easily identifiable rape.
Obtaining sex by deception is an offence for which people have been imprisoned, and it is possible that stealthing could come under this kind of heading. I believe it's a live issue in some countries as to whether it should be considered as actual rape.
In a recent documentary a young woman, in the UK, found out her 'boyfriend', with whom she had (somehow) had penetrative sex discovered that 'he' was a woman. At the time of the intimacy she was fine; but learning the truth of the circumstances under which she'd given herself she was devastated. She wasn't forced to have sex, but neither did she consent to have sex with a woman. The 'boyfriend' was convicted of obtaining sex by deception - can't remember if there was a prison sentence. But the young woman undoubtedly felt seriously violated in the most physically intimate fashion, even given the offence was in the past and she was unconscious of it at the time.
It could be argued that with stealthing, a woman isn't being forced, but neither is she consenting to have unprotected sex. The 'contract', for want of a better word, is false. And her trust, at least, is being violated; and maybe even, consequently, her reproductive choices and sexual health. Does rape have to include a particular measurable degree of sexual physical violation; and if so how are those particulars defined and to which degree?
I don't know if the strict legal definition of rape would include stealthing; I'm not even sure if it should. But it would appear that a good argument could be made for it.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Putting fluids into a persons body without their consent is surely abuse or assault.
"Oh you have put your cum into my body? Well, that cup of tea I made you also have unwanted fluids in it. Oh and the milk, isn't."
I think people who do this should have "RAPIST" branded onto their penis. Each time. And if they run out of space there, use their scrotum.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
I suppose that being on the outside looking in - I was operating under old rules - "STAY THE HELL AWAY AT ALL COSTS!".
Took a long time to understand this granular consent model; I had to crossmatch it to aviation or firewall security in my head... as i had been brought up with the old waterfall model...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
You're right rape is rape. All those conditions you named, the woman was asleep, the woman was drunk, are rape because the definition of rape is intercourse without consent.
The man in the stealth situation does not fit the definition of rape because he had consent for intercourse.
He did not have consent about the birth control/ disease prevention issue, but that's another issue.
It's exactly the same as the woman who says she has an IUD when she doesn't. In both situations they have agreed to a certain condition of one person's body that turns out to be a lie, but that isn't rape. He didn't get raped if she had a disease she didn't tell him about, either.
This deliberate stealthing should be against the law and may already be covered under some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, but it isn't rape. The couple consented to have sex. If some part of the sex act was not as promised that makes him a liar but not a rapist.
You do dilute the definition of rape if you try to call all less than pre-planned conditions, "rape," after intercouse has been consented to. What next? He promised me an orgasm and I didn't have one, so it was not the sort of sex I consented to, so it was rape?
Liopleurodon is on the wrong side of this. Twilight has it right.
Not in my view. Informed consent is the issue here, and the consent is not informed if one party is deliberately lying, especially since were the truth known consent might not have been received.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Surely its the equivalent of those women (and they do exist) who assure their partner they're taking the contraceptive pill but who don't, or condom piercers.
Is 'stealthing' rape then? No, but is is definitely assault and fraud.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Surely its the equivalent of those women (and they do exist) who assure their partner they're taking the contraceptive pill but who don't, or condom piercers.
With regard to the pill, I don't think it's the same thing. The man isn't going to get pregnant, and his body isn't going to have to literally bear the consequences of his partner's deception, however distressing it may be to find out he's unintentionally become a dad. However, his sexual health is certainly compromised in a way he isn't consenting to, if she secretly pierces their condoms.
Frankly, I wish there was a greater lobby (not necessarily a religious one, mind you!) advocating abstinence to the degree that it becomes normative to really - really - get to know someone well enough before you let them shag you. It wouldn't solve every case of stealthing, of course. But these days 99 times out of 100, whenever one hears of people being abused in some seriously violent way by their partners it seems to follow a pattern of 'we met in January and six weeks later we moved in together.....'.
I guess I'm just old fashioned.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I guess I'm just old fashioned.
I don't think you are, I think many young women are not so happy with the pressure young men put on them for a shag.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
...and not only young women ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll get me coat and go out to the shed before the missus tells me to.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
If it helps, in Canada the legal codes have not for a good long while recognized "rape". More appropriately, there is a crime called "sexual assault" (or maybe just "assault"). Most of what this thread is arguing about is whether certain acts are "rape" or not, and then about how one defines rape. In Canada, at least, that's a meaningless and pointless discussion. The act in question (and most of the other acts mentioned) is clearly "assault", which is all the courts really need to know.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I don't know about that, John Holding. I think the same arguments that say this is not rape would say this is not assault. An assault is a physical attack. Lying about the conditions of the sex act (saying you are not married when you are, saying you're on the pill when you aren't, stealthing) all break the verbal contract. It seems more like a form of fraud to me.
Fraud definition:wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Ejaculation - whether into a tissue or a vagina or another orifice - is a physical act.
ETA: And damaging / removing the condom so as to allow ejaculation into an orifice is also a physical act.
[ 29. April 2017, 20:33: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
An assault is a physical attack.
Nope.
quote:
"An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
An assault is a physical attack.
Nope.
quote:
"An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."
In which case having sex with an unconscious person is not an assault. So it can't be sexual assault, which is presumably a type of assault. I assume it's not legal in Canada. So how do they prosecute it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.
In the case of an unconscious person, they haven't consented to being touched.
(edited because I misunderstood the question)
[ 29. April 2017, 21:01: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Ejaculation - whether into a tissue or a vagina or another orifice - is a physical act.
ETA: And damaging / removing the condom so as to allow ejaculation into an orifice is also a physical act.
Physical act. Physical attack. Two different things. As far as I know there are no laws against physical acts.
Doc Tor may come up with one.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.
Very interesting. We were just discussing this on a "PreviouslyTV" forum for "Better Call Saul." Jimmy broke into his brother's house and shouted at him for awhile. His brother is charging him with breaking and entering and assault and none of us could understand where the assault part came in. My dictionary just defines it as, "a physical attack," but obviously the law is different.
Does this mean I can charge Mr. Cheesy with assault for demanding that I take things back immediately?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Does this mean I can charge Mr. Cheesy with assault for demanding that I take things back immediately?
No.
Hostly furry hat on
And for very good Ship reasons, suggesting that you might take legal action against another Shipmate will end up with this thread locked faster than a very quick thing.
Hostly furry hat off
So I'm going to pretend this was an entirely innocent question, with no intent behind it, and we'll leave it there.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I'll admit it, it was not an innocent question. It was a joke. I thought that was obvious.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
We're a bit trigger-happy about that particular problem back-stage, because of the problems it can cause the Ship. So we don't joke about it.
(Follow ups in Styx, please, but otherwise, no harm, no foul)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There is some false equivalence going on here.
Lying to a man about using the pill is not the same as stealthing.
Stealthing can transmit disease and cause pregnancy to the victim. Physical and long-lasting effects to a woman's body and finances.
Lying about the using the pill only has only consequences to a man's wallet. Yes, a man might care more, but he is not obligated to.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
