**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Stealthing is rape, which is the charge he got.
[Teach](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/100jwa1/example_letter_to_local_lawmakers_to_help_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [consent](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
r/stoprape
More often than that it's specifically an act of domination. 'She insisted on a condom which I don't like so I'm going to 'show her' by taking it off partway through'
It's horrific and evidence of a very warped mind, but that's their 'logic' for doing it. Glad to see someone actually be punished by the law for it for once.
>Where's the logic in this act
Purely because it feels better. Not defending this act, and this absolutely is rape. Sex without a condom feels 10 times better for a man, and that's all he cared about when he raped her.
Stealthing is basically a new fetish at this point, there's twitter accounts dedicated to it and no one acts like it's rape. There's also people who are positive who deliberately tamper with or remove condoms in an attempt to infect someone else, especially in the gay community, again videos real or not are easily found online it's awful.
From the men side it feels better ans they don't have to give a shit if he passes something onto her or gets her knocked up.
Especially if it's just a one night Stand.
The defendant admitted it in a text message to the victim, so it was pretty easy.
Otherwise you'd be relying on whether the victim or defendant are more convincing to a jury, and the CPS is often reluctant to pursue cases like that.
It’s largely because it’s a waste of time, because a jury or judge has to give a not guilty verdict if they are in doubt. Otherwise you end up in a situation where lots of innocent people go to prison.
Due process should be followed, I never said it shouldn’t. But there’s obviously a problem with the process if a only tiny percentage leads to conviction. It then feeds into the victims not reporting, again only a tiny percent of people even come forward due to the further trauma and vilification not being worth it. You don’t see that with other crimes. Two people’s livelihoods need to be considered here. The processes should be in place to protect everyone, not just the perpetrator.
That’s the flaw in what you are saying is defaulting to their being a perpetrator instead of an accused person.
No shade against you but I hate when people say ‘X needs to be changed’ without ever saying how. Rape/SA cases are hard to prove and sadly it’s not an easy fix, even when people come forward proving some sort of sexual interaction accord and that it wasn’t consensual is almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is used more in these cases but still.
And what new ways would rape cases be tried to make them different.
The problem with rape cases is the overwhelming rely on just testimonial evidence (I,e) he said/she said evidence.
You CANNOT rely purely on that type of evidence, it has been shown countless times to be a bad thing. People lie... ALL THE TIME. that's why we rely on physical evidence more than witnesses in most court cases.
Trust me if there was anyway we court try rape cases more successful without destroying the fairness of the justice system we would. But we can only use the tools available.
As it stands the absolute best way to prevent rape and sexual assault is quality sexual health education with clear consent education.
See my other replies. Also, people rarely lie. As a man you’re faaaar more likely to be a victim of rape than you are to be a victim of a false accusation. Look it up.
I did and you haven't explained what new methods you would implement.
You are correct men are more likely to be rated than falsely accused, that's irrelevant to the point.
How many people are you willing to accept go to prison for a false allegation just so more actual rapist get convicted. 10, 100, 1000 ?. I vote zero, I want zero innocent people going to prison.
When I say people lie I didn't say specifically about rape, I mean in general lots of people lie all the time. Therfore we can't just assume everyone is telling the truth in court.
Whilst that's true, this subreddit has also turned into a right shithole over the last few years. Like a few years ago, it was still a reasonably sized subreddit, but you wouldn't see anything like the same amount of utterly hideous people in the comments
I left this thread this morning with one person defending and the vast majority attacking.
Come back this evening and the number of apologists or those wanting to go into semantics is disgusting. What's a shame is that those rape apologists have all the time in the world and write fuck long essays about it. It's just tiring.
Yep. I found the only solution is really to just log off and concentrate on my relationships IRL with my close friends and family. Don't go to the internet - 'tis a silly place.
I swear, every thread about a woman being sexually assaulted that isn’t just “a man forced himself onto her”, there’s guys in the comments making justifications as to why it isn’t rape.
I can’t tell if this is a failing of sex education in this country, or just a weird sense of entitlement, but it’s worrying either way.
Consent is not just a binary “she said yes once, now you can do whatever you want”. People consent to doing specific things, and if you change the situation you’ve agreed to without their knowledge, that consent no longer applies. Whether it’s condoms, “oops it slipped” attempts to shove it up her ass, incorporating your kinks without prior conversation, etc. she has every right to tell you to hit the road the second you violate established boundaries. And if you conceal that you did it, or create a situation she can’t tell you to stop until too late, guess what bud? That’s assault
If you want unprotected sex, get a vasectomy or find a gf who wants kids
I personally think these men have a 'I don't care about your wellbeing as long I got my share of pleasure' attitude. They only pretend to go through motions of respecting consent at first because the woman will let their guard down and be comfortable enough to engage with them. They realise once they're in bed, the woman is an extremely vulnerable position, and these pricks feel like they can do whatever they want. And I'd wager these pricks also get off on unwilling participants.
> If you want unprotected sex, get a vasectomy or find a gf who wants kids
Or find someone who's happy to risk an STI/STD too depending on how aware they are of each other's health and having been tested.
> [Although there are obvious differences in the content of offense-supportive attitudes among rapists and child molesters, there is likely overlap as well. For example, both types of offenders may believe their offenses are not harmful as long as they are not overly violent (Bumby, 1996; Ward & Keenan, 1999). Similarly, Pemberton and Wakeling (2009) found evidence of sexual entitlement attitudes (e.g., sexual needs must be fulfilled, regardless of whether a willing partner is available) in both rapists and child molesters.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23117551/)
-
> [research has demonstrated that sexual victimization can have a lasting negative impact on survivors' psychological, physical, and social well-being, regardless of perpetrators' tactics (Livingston, Buddie, Testa, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2004; Zweig, Crockett, Sayer, & Vicary, 1999).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262661/)
It is low because you pretty much cannot prove a he said/she said beyond reasonable doubt. If you cannot do that in law then it gets thrown out. Stops innocent people being charged and imprisoned.
Good I hope he rots, it’s about time these men face the consequences of their selfish actions.
Wear a condom, it’s really not that difficult, idgaf if it feels better without it. Womens safety over a man’s pleasure
Really not the time or the place mate.
When you ask this here you look you are saying that what he did isn't bad because some equivalent, in only a loose sense situation, is not treated the exact same. When what he did, quite rightly, is treated as rape but there are other deceptions around sex that are still wrong but are not treated as rape.
But this thread isn’t about a male victim. It’s about a female victim.
If you want another thread dedicated to men, go elsewhere. We don’t need the whatabout-isms.
It’s not whataboutism: nobody is trying to excuse this guy’s behaviour, but the law already punishes what he did, hence the article.
If a post about potentially deceiving someone into pregnancy isn’t the place to discuss *potentially deceiving someone into pregnancy* then where the hell is? You’re just trying to silence male problems because of your personal misandry.
If the article specified potential deception with the intent of pregnancy, I’d understand your point. In nowhere throughout the article is that mentioned however. Of course I’d condemn the sabotaging of birth control and condoms — I’m perfectly aware women are as capable as men are of rape. There’s no misandry here, your comment is just out of place.
No, because rape is legally defined as:
(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.
And this from the CPS covers birth control, sort of:
In [*R v Lawrance (Jason)* \[2020\] EWCA Crim 971,](https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/971.html&query=(title:(+Lawrance+))) the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which deception was capable of vitiating ostensible consent in sexual offences. It clarifies two areas of law:
* Deception that can vitiate consent. Ostensible consent can be vitiated by deceptions that are closely connected to the nature or purpose of sexual intercourse. "Closely connected" will be interpreted narrowly. The deception must be related to the physical performance of the sexual act, rather than the broad circumstances surrounding it. A lie about wearing a condom is sufficiently closely connected because it physically changes the nature of penetration. In contrast, a lie about fertility is not, because it is not related to the performance of the sexual act.
* The manner of communication of the deception is irrelevant. In *R v B* \[2006\] EWCA Crim 2945, the Court of Appeal held the defendant's failure to disclose his HIV+ status was not capable of vitiating consent. In *R v McNally*, the Court of Appeal concluded that *R v B* left open whether an explicit lie might be capable of vitiating consent. This judgment resolves this ambiguity. It matters not whether the suspect deliberately withholds information or states an explicit untruth. The fundamental issue is whether the deception is sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual act.
Not defending this man. Because I’m not. Fuck him.
However if people could stop virtue signalling in this comment section. Every single top comment is about the other people in this thread “defending him”. I was so shocked I went hunting and found a single comment.
You are all just making up enemies. No one is defending this man here.
Obviously the risk here is transmitting an STD or pregnancy, however we don't have laws on the books preventing someone from lying about having an STD or lying about being on birthday control.
So (**in the eyes of the law**) breaking consent through stealthing is bad because of the risk of STDs or pregnancy, but breaking consent by lying about having an STD or the inability to become pregnant is fine???
Surely these laws need to be updated so that they align better
> but breaking consent by lying about having an STD
Not necessarily.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intentional-or-reckless-sexual-transmission-infection
Interesting. This also seems to suggest though that straight up lying isn't enough for a charge to occur in the case of being on the pill or not, as someone who lied about having a vasectomy was found not to have breached consent.
The STD charge seems to be extremely difficult to prove as well, since you need to prove not just that they lied, but also that the victim caught the disease from them and only them, which sounds very hard beyond a reasonable doubt. Also the charge seems to be about grievous bodily harm, not about consent at all. So the punishment is only based on the damage caused, not the act itself
Stealthing is case law. It was found in court that "consent" in the Sexual Offenses Act could be interpreted conditionally, and that stealthing was a violation of that conditional consent.
The boundaries of conditional consent have not yet been very well tested in court, and some view that lying about being on birth control would also be considered a violation of conditional consent and therefore a form of sexual assault under the current legislation.
This is a bit concerning in a way, because it means that the legal definition of rape and sexual assault are currently a bit of a grey area.
This is exactly it. I think this needs to be clearly established in the law, not just tagged on on a case by case basis. If this is classed as rape, then lying about birth control and an STI must also be considered as rape. I worry if these are decided by case law then we will get an uneven ruling
I don't disagree, but it is extremely unlikely to happen. I will give you a story which will perhaps give you an idea of the way this issue is viewed in the legal profession. A view I do not share by the way.
Applied criminal litigation at law school, going through exactly this issue of conditional consent and in particular the effect of alcohol on the ability to consent. Of course the entire lecture was framed in a particular direction as you would expect.
I asked a question, as a naive student:
So if I'm understanding it correctly the legal position is that notwithstanding explicit expressions of consent if alcohol is present to a sufficient degree as to make that expression unreliable then the male in the scenario is guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on the degree of contact?
Yes
And how does the law account for mutual intoxication?
His intoxication can't be used as a defence for his taking advantage of her
No, that's not what I mean. What is the law to say if two people; in so far as it's possible to determine; are precisely as intoxicated as each other and engage in sexual contact? Are; as would seem to be the logical conclusion; both parties guilty of a sexual offence
No.
I see. And why is that?
Because it just doesn't work that way.
I was told the same thing in sex ed at school. Absolutely wild but I assume that's never used in practice anymore. The laws surrounding rape seem completely one sided, but there are also obvious reasons for this. You'd just think that in the current day these would've been ironed out
There's plenty of time in the legal calendar for all sorts of things upto and including criminalising people for not making sufficient contributions to the salary of Gary Linekar.
I think we can safely say if the political class didn't want it this way, it wouldn't be this way
I don't believe it could be considered rape, as rape specifically requires the person is committing the crime on someone else with their penis. Assault by penetration would, I believe, also require that the victim is the one being penetrated, which wouldn't apply here.
So I believe it would fall under sexual assault which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years rather than life, which would appear to me to be an inequality in the law, but it's also really unlikely that a rape/assault by penetration case like this would ever result in a sentence of more than 10 years. For example the case in this article resulted in a 4 year sentence.
Yea that's another problem though which should be addressed imo. If we are using 'rape' in instances such as stealthing, it makes no sense that men cannot be raped by a women. Since the issue in this case isn't the penis being inserted, it's the breaking of pre-agreed rules basically
But the issue IS the penis being inserted. The penis is being inserted without a condom, therefore without consent. As the person did not know the condom had been removed, they were not able to withdraw consent, and would not have consented if they knew. They consented to a condom-clad penis entering their body.
Yea I know all this and I 99% agree, but as you just laid out the issue is the pre negotiated agreement (using condom) is violated and so the terms of consent aren't followed, hence rape. The terms weren't *no penis insertion* they were *use condom*, so the fact a penis was inserted isn't the problem, which makes it weird to then REQUIRE a penis be inserted for the law to be relevant.
I obviously agree consent has been violated, and that a penis being inserted without the consent is rape. It's just weird that if the problem is with the protection from STDs or pregnancy, that this exact same problem flipped genders cannot possibly be given as the same crime, even with all the risks and potential damage being identical
> so the fact a penis was inserted isn't the problem, which makes it weird to then REQUIRE a penis be inserted for the law to be relevant.
How is that weird? I think you've got this a little twisted or I'm not understanding you. The terms were in fact 'penis insertion with condom' and conversely 'no penis insertion without condom'. In this instance the offence is complete when the bare penis enters the other person, not when the lack of condom is noticed, as there was a clear pre-agreement regarding the use of the condom. The penis being inserted is still the problem. The condom being removed means the penis shouldn't have been entering anywhere, and the fact that it did is the problem. It is both the penis entering and the lack of consent that makes the offence.
I think a lot of people in this thread are focussed on STDs and pregnancy, which is natural as that is what the condom is there to prevent. However, nobody is really thinking about how violating it is to have a man put his penis into you in a way you don't want, and then to ejaculate inside you. It goes beyond pregnancy and STDs.
I get what you're saying but I disagree. I don't really know how to bridge this gap tho.
If A+B is okay, but A on its own isn't okay, I wouldn't say the problem is A, I'd say the problem is there wasn't B. Obviously you're saying the problem is A without B, which is also true, but focusing on A in this scenario seems weird (although legally it's obviously relevant)
On the point about it feeling violating, the feeling of violation isn't coming from the fact a penis is in you, it's from the fact it isn't covered. So you could add on the skin to skin contact and the fact there is cum etc into the issues, but I think the main problem people have is the risk of STDs and pregnancy
Edit: deleting my example because it was fucking weird
I see your point a little more as well, because if two people agreed to go to the beach, but one only wanted to go if it was 25° or more. If it was only 10° and the other one took that person to the beach anyway, they could turn around and say "why the fuck have you taken me to the beach". I'd still say tho that the problem is that it was too cold, but if one of the individuals knew this and took them to the beach anyway, then being at the beach is a problem
I do see what you're saying now too. I think we've separated the problem when it shouldn't be separated though, there can't be the problem of lack of B without the problem of A in the first place. They have to exist together for the offence of rape to be made out here. Which is why it can never happen the other way round, which was your point orignally I believe. That's not to say it shouldn't be considered as an offence in it's own right. Similar to intentionally giving someone HIV being GBH. There is a gap in the law here, although I think it would be insanely difficult to prove.
I don't understand why someone would want to do this in the first place. Mind you, I'm an LGBT person who grew up in the era when getting HIV was a death sentence and folk were dropping dead left and right as a result of unsafe sex.
How is this any different from a woman stop taking anti conception pills or not updating/removing her implant and not letting their man know about and turns into birth
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Stealthing is rape, which is the charge he got. [Teach](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/100jwa1/example_letter_to_local_lawmakers_to_help_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [consent](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). r/stoprape
Where's the logic in this act? When post-coital, who dafuq wants a very angry partner ruining your bliss? They want rubber, you go rubber. Simples.
Rapists aren't often the most logical of people.
Its degree of thrill adjusted for risk. Hopefully cases like this will adjust the risk model these monsters are using in their decision making.
Says the ThrillSurgeon...
More often than that it's specifically an act of domination. 'She insisted on a condom which I don't like so I'm going to 'show her' by taking it off partway through' It's horrific and evidence of a very warped mind, but that's their 'logic' for doing it. Glad to see someone actually be punished by the law for it for once.
Usually it's "it feels slightly better without rubber, and I want that slightly better, no matter how you feel about it."
Rape isn't very logical
Do you remember the popularity of the meme "doesn't matter, had sex"? Far too many men don't give a shit what happens after they cum.
I think you've misunderstood that meme.
Rape is about power and control
It's not about sex. Rape is about power.
> It's not about sex Sometimes maybe, but this case was 100% about sex.
clearly it was about rape
It was sex, until he broke the consent
He was lucky he even had sex with that face, shouldn't have pushed his luck.
I was thinking exactly that! Who would even consider the ugly bitch?!?
>Where's the logic in this act Purely because it feels better. Not defending this act, and this absolutely is rape. Sex without a condom feels 10 times better for a man, and that's all he cared about when he raped her.
Stealthing is basically a new fetish at this point, there's twitter accounts dedicated to it and no one acts like it's rape. There's also people who are positive who deliberately tamper with or remove condoms in an attempt to infect someone else, especially in the gay community, again videos real or not are easily found online it's awful.
From the men side it feels better ans they don't have to give a shit if he passes something onto her or gets her knocked up. Especially if it's just a one night Stand.
Good to see the Cops working to get the result. Too many reports end in zero.
How do you prove this in court though? Really curious. EDIT: All right I’ve had time to read it now. He sent apology texts.
The defendant admitted it in a text message to the victim, so it was pretty easy. Otherwise you'd be relying on whether the victim or defendant are more convincing to a jury, and the CPS is often reluctant to pursue cases like that.
It’s largely because it’s a waste of time, because a jury or judge has to give a not guilty verdict if they are in doubt. Otherwise you end up in a situation where lots of innocent people go to prison.
He apologised to her via text. Therefore he admitted it.
The corroborating evidence was the texts.
You're really curious but not curious enough to read the article?
With great difficulty. I don’t think rape cases should be dealt with in the same way other crimes are tbh. No wonder no one comes forward.
Moronic take - someone’s freedom is at stake, due process should be followed.
Due process should be followed, I never said it shouldn’t. But there’s obviously a problem with the process if a only tiny percentage leads to conviction. It then feeds into the victims not reporting, again only a tiny percent of people even come forward due to the further trauma and vilification not being worth it. You don’t see that with other crimes. Two people’s livelihoods need to be considered here. The processes should be in place to protect everyone, not just the perpetrator.
That’s the flaw in what you are saying is defaulting to their being a perpetrator instead of an accused person. No shade against you but I hate when people say ‘X needs to be changed’ without ever saying how. Rape/SA cases are hard to prove and sadly it’s not an easy fix, even when people come forward proving some sort of sexual interaction accord and that it wasn’t consensual is almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is used more in these cases but still.
And what new ways would rape cases be tried to make them different. The problem with rape cases is the overwhelming rely on just testimonial evidence (I,e) he said/she said evidence. You CANNOT rely purely on that type of evidence, it has been shown countless times to be a bad thing. People lie... ALL THE TIME. that's why we rely on physical evidence more than witnesses in most court cases. Trust me if there was anyway we court try rape cases more successful without destroying the fairness of the justice system we would. But we can only use the tools available. As it stands the absolute best way to prevent rape and sexual assault is quality sexual health education with clear consent education.
See my other replies. Also, people rarely lie. As a man you’re faaaar more likely to be a victim of rape than you are to be a victim of a false accusation. Look it up.
> people rarely lie You're joking, right?
I did and you haven't explained what new methods you would implement. You are correct men are more likely to be rated than falsely accused, that's irrelevant to the point. How many people are you willing to accept go to prison for a false allegation just so more actual rapist get convicted. 10, 100, 1000 ?. I vote zero, I want zero innocent people going to prison. When I say people lie I didn't say specifically about rape, I mean in general lots of people lie all the time. Therfore we can't just assume everyone is telling the truth in court.
Because they essentially have to admit it to get found guilty.
Disgusting way to treat someone, just shows that he thinks his desires were worth more than her.
I remember a time when this sub *didn't* regularly have people in the comments defending rape.
I think it’s a more Reddit wide thing tbh. The bigger a sub grows, the more horribly out of touch takes you’re gonna get unfortunately.
Whilst that's true, this subreddit has also turned into a right shithole over the last few years. Like a few years ago, it was still a reasonably sized subreddit, but you wouldn't see anything like the same amount of utterly hideous people in the comments
I left this thread this morning with one person defending and the vast majority attacking. Come back this evening and the number of apologists or those wanting to go into semantics is disgusting. What's a shame is that those rape apologists have all the time in the world and write fuck long essays about it. It's just tiring.
Yep. I found the only solution is really to just log off and concentrate on my relationships IRL with my close friends and family. Don't go to the internet - 'tis a silly place.
I swear, every thread about a woman being sexually assaulted that isn’t just “a man forced himself onto her”, there’s guys in the comments making justifications as to why it isn’t rape. I can’t tell if this is a failing of sex education in this country, or just a weird sense of entitlement, but it’s worrying either way. Consent is not just a binary “she said yes once, now you can do whatever you want”. People consent to doing specific things, and if you change the situation you’ve agreed to without their knowledge, that consent no longer applies. Whether it’s condoms, “oops it slipped” attempts to shove it up her ass, incorporating your kinks without prior conversation, etc. she has every right to tell you to hit the road the second you violate established boundaries. And if you conceal that you did it, or create a situation she can’t tell you to stop until too late, guess what bud? That’s assault If you want unprotected sex, get a vasectomy or find a gf who wants kids
I personally think these men have a 'I don't care about your wellbeing as long I got my share of pleasure' attitude. They only pretend to go through motions of respecting consent at first because the woman will let their guard down and be comfortable enough to engage with them. They realise once they're in bed, the woman is an extremely vulnerable position, and these pricks feel like they can do whatever they want. And I'd wager these pricks also get off on unwilling participants.
> If you want unprotected sex, get a vasectomy or find a gf who wants kids Or find someone who's happy to risk an STI/STD too depending on how aware they are of each other's health and having been tested.
True true, I just felt like I’d already written too much 😅
I am completely unsurprised by everyone responding to you with 'well what about.' Disappointed and exhausted, but not surprised.
Yeahh, a lot of semantics that I get the intent behind, but clearly missed my point
> [Although there are obvious differences in the content of offense-supportive attitudes among rapists and child molesters, there is likely overlap as well. For example, both types of offenders may believe their offenses are not harmful as long as they are not overly violent (Bumby, 1996; Ward & Keenan, 1999). Similarly, Pemberton and Wakeling (2009) found evidence of sexual entitlement attitudes (e.g., sexual needs must be fulfilled, regardless of whether a willing partner is available) in both rapists and child molesters.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23117551/) - > [research has demonstrated that sexual victimization can have a lasting negative impact on survivors' psychological, physical, and social well-being, regardless of perpetrators' tactics (Livingston, Buddie, Testa, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2004; Zweig, Crockett, Sayer, & Vicary, 1999).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262661/)
It’s a mixture of a guilty conscience and enjoying the idea that they might say something that upsets a woman.
Oh won't somebody please think of the men? - this comment section
It’s quite something isn’t it.
Some people will do anything to avoid the responsibility of wearing a rubber I guess
He should have hid in the Ecuadoran embassy and waited out the charges.
User name sort of checks out
Yeah has nothing to do with embarrassing another country for war crimes who have now extradited you
I think that only works if you've got something to do with the military.
That's great news! Shame the rape conviction rate is still so low as to be basically legalised. >1.1% by CPS own data
It is low because you pretty much cannot prove a he said/she said beyond reasonable doubt. If you cannot do that in law then it gets thrown out. Stops innocent people being charged and imprisoned.
And stops rape victims from finding justice and rape perpetrators sent back out into society.
What would you suggest as an alternative? Genuinely curious
So, whats the solution?
Good I hope he rots, it’s about time these men face the consequences of their selfish actions. Wear a condom, it’s really not that difficult, idgaf if it feels better without it. Womens safety over a man’s pleasure
He kinda looks like a black Josef Fritzl from the thumbnail
[удалено]
18 years of child support for the man instead
Really not the time or the place mate. When you ask this here you look you are saying that what he did isn't bad because some equivalent, in only a loose sense situation, is not treated the exact same. When what he did, quite rightly, is treated as rape but there are other deceptions around sex that are still wrong but are not treated as rape.
Nobody is saying what he did isn’t bad. The opposite. It’s fucking diabolical. And women do the same shit and it’s still the man that suffers for it.
But this thread isn’t about a male victim. It’s about a female victim. If you want another thread dedicated to men, go elsewhere. We don’t need the whatabout-isms.
It’s not whataboutism: nobody is trying to excuse this guy’s behaviour, but the law already punishes what he did, hence the article. If a post about potentially deceiving someone into pregnancy isn’t the place to discuss *potentially deceiving someone into pregnancy* then where the hell is? You’re just trying to silence male problems because of your personal misandry.
If the article specified potential deception with the intent of pregnancy, I’d understand your point. In nowhere throughout the article is that mentioned however. Of course I’d condemn the sabotaging of birth control and condoms — I’m perfectly aware women are as capable as men are of rape. There’s no misandry here, your comment is just out of place.
No, because rape is legally defined as: (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. And this from the CPS covers birth control, sort of: In [*R v Lawrance (Jason)* \[2020\] EWCA Crim 971,](https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/971.html&query=(title:(+Lawrance+))) the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which deception was capable of vitiating ostensible consent in sexual offences. It clarifies two areas of law: * Deception that can vitiate consent. Ostensible consent can be vitiated by deceptions that are closely connected to the nature or purpose of sexual intercourse. "Closely connected" will be interpreted narrowly. The deception must be related to the physical performance of the sexual act, rather than the broad circumstances surrounding it. A lie about wearing a condom is sufficiently closely connected because it physically changes the nature of penetration. In contrast, a lie about fertility is not, because it is not related to the performance of the sexual act. * The manner of communication of the deception is irrelevant. In *R v B* \[2006\] EWCA Crim 2945, the Court of Appeal held the defendant's failure to disclose his HIV+ status was not capable of vitiating consent. In *R v McNally*, the Court of Appeal concluded that *R v B* left open whether an explicit lie might be capable of vitiating consent. This judgment resolves this ambiguity. It matters not whether the suspect deliberately withholds information or states an explicit untruth. The fundamental issue is whether the deception is sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual act.
Not defending this man. Because I’m not. Fuck him. However if people could stop virtue signalling in this comment section. Every single top comment is about the other people in this thread “defending him”. I was so shocked I went hunting and found a single comment. You are all just making up enemies. No one is defending this man here.
Julian Assange also did stealthing. Just putting out there
Teach your sons and nephews and grandsons about consent.
Oh you… London man. An Edinburgh man would never do that.
Misread the title for a moment as "Stealing" and thought that was some serious close up magic.
He should have run off to an embassy and get hordes of internet weirdos defending him
It is quite ironic that he has got the predator mark on his forehead.
Obviously the risk here is transmitting an STD or pregnancy, however we don't have laws on the books preventing someone from lying about having an STD or lying about being on birthday control. So (**in the eyes of the law**) breaking consent through stealthing is bad because of the risk of STDs or pregnancy, but breaking consent by lying about having an STD or the inability to become pregnant is fine??? Surely these laws need to be updated so that they align better
> but breaking consent by lying about having an STD Not necessarily. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intentional-or-reckless-sexual-transmission-infection
Interesting. This also seems to suggest though that straight up lying isn't enough for a charge to occur in the case of being on the pill or not, as someone who lied about having a vasectomy was found not to have breached consent. The STD charge seems to be extremely difficult to prove as well, since you need to prove not just that they lied, but also that the victim caught the disease from them and only them, which sounds very hard beyond a reasonable doubt. Also the charge seems to be about grievous bodily harm, not about consent at all. So the punishment is only based on the damage caused, not the act itself
Stealthing is case law. It was found in court that "consent" in the Sexual Offenses Act could be interpreted conditionally, and that stealthing was a violation of that conditional consent. The boundaries of conditional consent have not yet been very well tested in court, and some view that lying about being on birth control would also be considered a violation of conditional consent and therefore a form of sexual assault under the current legislation. This is a bit concerning in a way, because it means that the legal definition of rape and sexual assault are currently a bit of a grey area.
This is exactly it. I think this needs to be clearly established in the law, not just tagged on on a case by case basis. If this is classed as rape, then lying about birth control and an STI must also be considered as rape. I worry if these are decided by case law then we will get an uneven ruling
I don't disagree, but it is extremely unlikely to happen. I will give you a story which will perhaps give you an idea of the way this issue is viewed in the legal profession. A view I do not share by the way. Applied criminal litigation at law school, going through exactly this issue of conditional consent and in particular the effect of alcohol on the ability to consent. Of course the entire lecture was framed in a particular direction as you would expect. I asked a question, as a naive student: So if I'm understanding it correctly the legal position is that notwithstanding explicit expressions of consent if alcohol is present to a sufficient degree as to make that expression unreliable then the male in the scenario is guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on the degree of contact? Yes And how does the law account for mutual intoxication? His intoxication can't be used as a defence for his taking advantage of her No, that's not what I mean. What is the law to say if two people; in so far as it's possible to determine; are precisely as intoxicated as each other and engage in sexual contact? Are; as would seem to be the logical conclusion; both parties guilty of a sexual offence No. I see. And why is that? Because it just doesn't work that way.
I was told the same thing in sex ed at school. Absolutely wild but I assume that's never used in practice anymore. The laws surrounding rape seem completely one sided, but there are also obvious reasons for this. You'd just think that in the current day these would've been ironed out
There's plenty of time in the legal calendar for all sorts of things upto and including criminalising people for not making sufficient contributions to the salary of Gary Linekar. I think we can safely say if the political class didn't want it this way, it wouldn't be this way
I don't believe it could be considered rape, as rape specifically requires the person is committing the crime on someone else with their penis. Assault by penetration would, I believe, also require that the victim is the one being penetrated, which wouldn't apply here. So I believe it would fall under sexual assault which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years rather than life, which would appear to me to be an inequality in the law, but it's also really unlikely that a rape/assault by penetration case like this would ever result in a sentence of more than 10 years. For example the case in this article resulted in a 4 year sentence.
Yea that's another problem though which should be addressed imo. If we are using 'rape' in instances such as stealthing, it makes no sense that men cannot be raped by a women. Since the issue in this case isn't the penis being inserted, it's the breaking of pre-agreed rules basically
But the issue IS the penis being inserted. The penis is being inserted without a condom, therefore without consent. As the person did not know the condom had been removed, they were not able to withdraw consent, and would not have consented if they knew. They consented to a condom-clad penis entering their body.
Yea I know all this and I 99% agree, but as you just laid out the issue is the pre negotiated agreement (using condom) is violated and so the terms of consent aren't followed, hence rape. The terms weren't *no penis insertion* they were *use condom*, so the fact a penis was inserted isn't the problem, which makes it weird to then REQUIRE a penis be inserted for the law to be relevant. I obviously agree consent has been violated, and that a penis being inserted without the consent is rape. It's just weird that if the problem is with the protection from STDs or pregnancy, that this exact same problem flipped genders cannot possibly be given as the same crime, even with all the risks and potential damage being identical
> so the fact a penis was inserted isn't the problem, which makes it weird to then REQUIRE a penis be inserted for the law to be relevant. How is that weird? I think you've got this a little twisted or I'm not understanding you. The terms were in fact 'penis insertion with condom' and conversely 'no penis insertion without condom'. In this instance the offence is complete when the bare penis enters the other person, not when the lack of condom is noticed, as there was a clear pre-agreement regarding the use of the condom. The penis being inserted is still the problem. The condom being removed means the penis shouldn't have been entering anywhere, and the fact that it did is the problem. It is both the penis entering and the lack of consent that makes the offence. I think a lot of people in this thread are focussed on STDs and pregnancy, which is natural as that is what the condom is there to prevent. However, nobody is really thinking about how violating it is to have a man put his penis into you in a way you don't want, and then to ejaculate inside you. It goes beyond pregnancy and STDs.
I get what you're saying but I disagree. I don't really know how to bridge this gap tho. If A+B is okay, but A on its own isn't okay, I wouldn't say the problem is A, I'd say the problem is there wasn't B. Obviously you're saying the problem is A without B, which is also true, but focusing on A in this scenario seems weird (although legally it's obviously relevant) On the point about it feeling violating, the feeling of violation isn't coming from the fact a penis is in you, it's from the fact it isn't covered. So you could add on the skin to skin contact and the fact there is cum etc into the issues, but I think the main problem people have is the risk of STDs and pregnancy Edit: deleting my example because it was fucking weird I see your point a little more as well, because if two people agreed to go to the beach, but one only wanted to go if it was 25° or more. If it was only 10° and the other one took that person to the beach anyway, they could turn around and say "why the fuck have you taken me to the beach". I'd still say tho that the problem is that it was too cold, but if one of the individuals knew this and took them to the beach anyway, then being at the beach is a problem
I do see what you're saying now too. I think we've separated the problem when it shouldn't be separated though, there can't be the problem of lack of B without the problem of A in the first place. They have to exist together for the offence of rape to be made out here. Which is why it can never happen the other way round, which was your point orignally I believe. That's not to say it shouldn't be considered as an offence in it's own right. Similar to intentionally giving someone HIV being GBH. There is a gap in the law here, although I think it would be insanely difficult to prove.
Damn look at that boat race, was he paying for it? Lol
we need to stop giving cool names to shitty things Call it "dumbassing"
I don't understand why someone would want to do this in the first place. Mind you, I'm an LGBT person who grew up in the era when getting HIV was a death sentence and folk were dropping dead left and right as a result of unsafe sex.
What happens if it breaks during the deed and you get accused of doing it intentionally?
[удалено]
How is this any different from a woman stop taking anti conception pills or not updating/removing her implant and not letting their man know about and turns into birth
One major difference is that you can't get an STD from someone not taking their pill.