Man in UK jailed for "rape" for poking hole in condom - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15125183
This sounds awfully similar to what happened to Julian Assange, with the charges coming from Sweden that played a huge part in getting him into the mess he's in.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk ... d=msedgntp


A man in the UK received a 4-year jail sentence on rape charges after he poked a hole in a condom without telling his partner.

Andrew Lewis, a 47-year-old train driver, had earlier admitted to rape prior to his sentencing.

“It was a breach of trust," the Worcester Crown Court said. "The offense of rape is so serious a custodial sentence is appropriate.”

The woman had made it clear to Lewis that she did not want a baby, but Lewis said he was hoping to change her mind, according to prosecutors.

The woman later called Lewis' actions “pure evil" when speaking to police.

“He told police he had hoped the condom would split and it would improve the intimacy," prosecutor Glyn Samuel said. He said it was the stupidest thing he has ever done. In piercing the condom beforehand there was a degree of planning involved.”

According to prosecutors, the man’s partner discovered Lewis' deception after finding pins and similarly tampered with condoms in a bedside drawer in March 2018. The woman checked the used condom and found the hole.
#15125900
With all the feminist and extreme sexual consent laws appearing in many countries today, we need to be careful about what it actually means when a man is charged with "rape".

It could be something very different from the type of rape most people think of (very bad), and instead could be something much more trivial. Something many people think should not even be a crime.
#15125910
This seems to be fairly clear cut case. Calling it rape seems fair enough to me. Normally the problem with rape is that the facts are disputed, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. And then you have vile sociopathic sickos like Joe Biden saying that women should always be believed. Until they start accusing Joe Biden of course. Of course women that accuse Joe Biden shouldn't be believed.
#15125913
Ok. It happens all the time without the intent...but whatever.

What about if a guy goes out and buys a packet of condoms that aren’t as good in quality as a leading brand, hoping they break? I suppose that’s rape too? Wait wait....premeditated rape at that.

Worlds gone fucking mad.
#15126011
Rich wrote:Calling it rape seems fair enough to me.

The problem with calling it "rape" is that everyone else that doesn't know exactly what the man is really being accused of is going to think it is rape (the normal type of rape).

That issue could be illustrated very well in the Julian Assange extradition case. The public thought that two women were accusing him of rape. That was very far from the truth in reality.

If the public had actually known the circumstances and the reasons for which Swedish authorities were seeking to have him extradited, many of them would have been a lot more on the side of thinking he should not be extradited.

Many in fact completely didn't care what happened to him because they thought/assumed he was a "rapist".
(i.e. It made a lot of the sympathy for him disappear/evaporate)
#15126013
How much is hyberbole by the media article rather than the proceedings of the court. It smells of overblown to get people riled up for the views than any sensible appraisal of what constitutes the harm in removing a condom.

My understanding is that it isn’t necessarily always covered by law and its not to be considered on par with rape in harm but is better accommodated by tort law.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=592098125026007094113080104065126025031062030036027094096098125077111117023124113022002118044037105004117020019003024115112114026048010030044102014073012093075021103034086015092089074070102084024123117101003115010119098001073111022100017091096027067025&EXT=pdf
#15126016
ness31 wrote:How is breaking a condom the equivalent to forced penetrative sex? :|

It's not.

And that's the problem, when both situations are thrown into the same boat as "rape".


However, I'll explain to you how they view it.
Something sexual in nature is done to the woman without her consent. Even if the woman gave her consent to have sex.
Some detail about that sex the woman was not aware of during the sexual act.

I think most people would view it as her being deceived. But feminists would consider it rape.

Yet another example of this type of "rape" would be once a woman has consensual sex, then she is lying in the same bed naked under the sheets with the same man she just had consensual sex with, and a little bit later the man goes into her again. She did not give consent for him to have sex with her a second time. So it is "rape".
Even though the woman never said "no" or did anything to physically resist.

Also if a woman consented to sex, and thought the man was going to have one type of sex with her, but he ends up having a different type of sex with her, which she was not expecting at the time she gave her consent. Even if the woman begrudgingly allows him to proceed, it is still "rape". She did not consent to that other form of sex, even though she consented to sex.

This may sound completely absurd to some of you, but these can actually be prosecuted as crimes in some places.
#15126017
Wellsy wrote:How much is hyberbole by the media article rather than the proceedings of the court. It smells of overblown to get people riled up for the views than any sensible appraisal of what constitutes the harm in removing a condom.

This wasn't some random man the woman was hooking up with.
This was her partner/boyfriend.
#15126018
Puffer Fish wrote:This wasn't some random man the woman was hooking up with.
This was her partner/boyfriend.

My point about it more likely to be evaluated as a harm on part with tort law isn’t changed by the fact of her being an established partner.
You can still be harmed by someone who is an established partner.
#15126074
Puffer Fish wrote:That issue could be illustrated very well in the Julian Assange extradition case. The public thought that two women were accusing him of rape. That was very far from the truth in reality.

If the public had actually known the circumstances and the reasons for which Swedish authorities were seeking to have him extradited, many of them would have been a lot more on the side of thinking he should not be extradited.

Many in fact completely didn't care what happened to him because they thought/assumed he was a "rapist".
(i.e. It made a lot of the sympathy for him disappear/evaporate)

The issue with Julian Assuage was not the potential seriousness of the alleged offences, it was the lack of proof that these offences had occurred. The fact that at least one of the victims alleged victims hung out with Assuage afterwards and that the women may have been put under pressure to make the accusations. In cases like the Assaunge one whether there was consent, may well be murky.

In this case there seems to have been no doubt. I don't consider it rabid feminism to assume that if a women wants you to use a condom, that she doesn't want it to have hole poked in it. This was rape period.
#15126104
Rich wrote:The issue with Julian Assuage was not the potential seriousness of the alleged offences, it was the lack of proof that these offences had occurred. The fact that at least one of the victims alleged victims hung out with Assuage afterwards and that the women may have been put under pressure to make the accusations. In cases like the Assaunge one whether there was consent, may well be murky.

I may be wrong about this, but I believe you are wrong about this.

From what I understand, what Assange did (if the allegations from the women are even fully true) actually amounted to some rather minor sexual transgressions in the bedroom, of the type that would probably never be prosecuted as a crime in any normal country.
The women later got angry at him when they found out he had been sleeping with both of them. They went down to the police initially to see if he could be legally coerced to take an STD test, since they perceived he had been "sleeping around" and now they were concerned about their own health. Instead, a radical feminist prosecutor there convinced them that what Assange had done to them was wrong and constituted a crime. And under the crazy law in Sweden, she did have some legal basis for that. The charges against Assange actually seem to have had more to do with feminism. Of course, there was no way Assange could have known this at the time.

The actual story is of course much more complicated, but this is as simple as I can summarize it for you.
#15126105
Igor Antunov wrote:Women making these claims have clearly never been raped. Rape involves violence and restraint.

The west must go the way of the dodo soon. It is sickly.

I think you are misunderstanding or totally missing the point.

The women are not lying about what exactly happened. It is just that they are saying it constitutes "rape", or the government is saying it constitutes "rape".

Women making up false allegations and lying about what happened would be a completely different separate topic. That is not what we are talking about.
#15126106
Wellsy wrote:My point about it more likely to be evaluated as a harm on part with tort law isn’t changed by the fact of her being an established partner.
You can still be harmed by someone who is an established partner.

In the old days, society accepted that if a woman had sex, she (and he) accepted the possibility of the (natural) consequences that could come along with that.
But today there is a mindset that the woman should be able to have consequence-free sex, and is entitled to have sex with nothing going wrong, or have sex with no risk of getting pregnant and carrying a baby.
So all the blame here is being placed on the man, for sabotaging this woman's "right" to have sex and not get pregnant.

There is good reason why what happened here would never be considered "rape" or "damages" in conservative societies.
#15126108
Puffer Fish wrote:In the old days, society accepted that if a woman had sex, she (and he) accepted the possibility of the (natural) consequences that could come along with that.
But today there is a mindset that the woman should be able to have consequence-free sex, and is entitled to have sex with nothing going wrong, or have sex with no risk of getting pregnant and carrying a baby.
So all the blame here is being placed on the man, for sabotaging this woman's "right" to have sex and not get pregnant.

There is good reason why what happened here would never be considered "rape" or "damages" in conservative societies.

And a lot of things hadn’t been critiqued and overturned in conservative societies where many demographics had little voice power or rights.

But its not that that women are expecting to have consequence free sex but condoms do mitigate risks somewhat. If they had used a condom and got pregnant, there would be no claim for harm. The harm is the increased risk for STDs and pregnancy which is intense physically upon the health of the woman, against her wishes through deception.

Its certainly not rape but its not negligible that someone is a prick who convinced a woman he is using a condom and then tricks her and putting her at increased risks, whether they’re actualized or not.

So you should go further in depth if you wish to argue whether there is indeed a harm posed that is worthy of a legal consequence.

This is the crux rather than any tangent to how things were or weren’t once upon a time.

I think it is comparable to a woman sabotaging a condom or how some women purposely get a mans condom to try and inseminate themselves. In such a case I think it reasonable to defend the man from paternal responsibility because there is implicit consent to getting pregnant and so on with sex. Its simply a risk but it is changed by the active intervention to disrupt the methods which minimize the risk of such effects and should be with consequences for the interfering party.
And sperm theft is becoming more recognized as a harm worthy of legal recognition also.
https://en.hhlaw.org.il/sperm-theft/

The description of it being rape is an abuse of the term and 4 years seems extreme and disproportionate to the harm. I see how they try to frame it in terms that consent is to a specific sexual act and thus is conditional and so anything outside that seems to be interpreted as rape. But surely the UK even has a distinction between rape and sexual assault. Basically, i think clarity needs to be brought upon what the UK law is because I’ve seen UK cases summarizes in which the hesitation to convict a man on rape for fewer of overcriminalizing sex based on fear around overcriminalizing intoxicated sex in a case when it was clearly rape with a who happened to be very drunk and wasn’t a matter of her intoxication. So things can be quite ridiculous on the face of them and need to be explored.
Rethinking the Electoral College

Huh? Who draws a line? Who decides what this l[…]

Election 2020

@colliric I am holding a Coronation party, today[…]

Emotion is the thing that you get when you track c[…]

Biden breaks his foot

@Verv Seeing as there are numerous indictments l[…]