[Rich]

The most successful rape is one which gets the women pregnant.

This then leaves the women with choice of devoting her life to bringing up her rapists baby or going through the trauma of having an abortion. Yes having sex with contraception with contraception will always carry some risk of pregnancy, and by consenting to have sex with condoms, she consents to that small risk. But many activities have small risks of severe consequences. If someone goes climbing there is always a small risk of death, but just because you agreed to go climbing doesn't give someone the right to part saw through your climbing rope. Deliberately, massively increasing the chances of pregnancy against the clearly and unambiguously expressed consent of the women is not just rape, it is the most severe form of rape.

Now I understand that many conservative men have high levels of entitlement in this regard. If a women agrees to have sex with them they feel they are entitled to get her pregnant. They may feel entitled to a life long commitment from her. They may feel entitled to have her as their exclusive sexual possession. If she has sex with someone else they may feel entitled to use violence against her or the person that she has had sex with. If they merely suspect she has had sex with someone else they may feel entitled to use violence against her or the person that she has had sex with. If she flirts with someone else or at the very least they see her as flirting someone else they may feel entitled to use violence against her or the person that they believe she flirted with. There was a guy in Saudi Arabia who killed a doctor not so long back because, his wife had partially undressed during the medical treatment.

Now I'm also quite aware that many conservative societies and conservative sub cultures will often support men in some or all of these entitlements. I'm quite aware that many women within these societies will support men in their sense of entitlement. Oh yes I'm quite aware of the sensibilities of conservative societies. You only have to look back in Britain to the Yorkshire ripper. When he first emerged as a major news story, as a man who was killing prostitutes, many men and women both within the police force and within the wider society felt a deep sympathy for him and his imagined mission. That deep sympathy for the Yorkshire Ripper continued even when he tragically and it was believed mistakenly killed a "nice" girl.

Of course this all turned out to be complete conservative fantasy. There was no mission. His first attack against a woman almost certainly wasn't even against a prostitute. It was in daylight so she hadn't even committed the crime of a women going out after a dark alone. The Yorkshire Ripper just enjoyed killing women and then masturbating over their dead or dying bodies. He tended to go for women who were engaged in the act of prostitution, because they made safer targets exposing himself to less risk of capture.

Oh yes I know all about conservative attitudes.

[Puffer Fish]

But surely the UK even has a distinction between rape and sexual assault.

The US does not. If you tell people in the US the word "sexual assault", they will assume it to mean rape.

Even if you just say "sexual violation", the vast majority of people in the US will interpret that to mean something really awfully detestable like rape. Only perhaps one that did not involve a penis going into the woman.
Or at the very least some sexual act when the woman was not consenting to sexual advances in any way.

The US (or most of it) does not have any concept of "sexual assault" or "sexual violation" occurring during the time the woman was consenting to sex.

So it would seem some societies have changed the definition of terms.

[Puffer Fish]

Eventually, the Churchies are going to have their way and no one will be having sex outside of marital bonds. How fantastically liberated

This is an astute observation and one that had occurred to me as well.

These problems never really existed when all sex was inside of marriages.

A woman officially "withdrawing her consent" would be tantamount to a divorce.
And men did not have to worry about being wrongly accused of rape if they were married to the woman.

It's interesting that that concept seems so alien to most of society now.

[ness31]

You know what’s amusing? So many lawyers around and it’s like no one understands basic law and definitions. It wasn’t rape. It was deceptive sexual behaviour which could have had negative consequences for the woman. Kind of like when a woman says she’s on the pill and isn’t, trapping a man fatherhood.

Rape it is not

What we need is a good Jewish Rabbis opinion.

[Igor Antunov]

You know what’s amusing? So many lawyers around and it’s like no one understands basic law and definitions. It wasn’t rape. It was deceptive sexual behaviour which could have had negative consequences for the woman. Kind of like when a woman says she’s on the pill and isn’t, trapping a man fatherhood.

Rape it is not

What we need is a good Jewish Rabbis opinion.

Perfect counter-example. Would such a woman also go to jail for years, based on the mans accusation? It's the same thing but roles are reversed. Attempt at deceptive conception.

The answer is no, she wouldn't. So neither should this guy for poking a hole in his condom.

[Rich]

Perfect counter-example. Would such a woman also go to jail for years, based on the mans accusation?

This is not based on the women's accusation. The guy has admitted that he did it.

It's the same thing but roles are reversed. Attempt at deceptive conception.

The answer is no, she wouldn't. So neither should this guy for poking a hole in his condom.

No it wouldn't be the same even if the women confessed to sabotaging the contraception. Its the woman that gets pregnant not the man. I'm certainly opposed to compulsory child maintenance from men for children that they never see, that's a disgusting injustice, but one that apparently both conservatives and liberals are happy to tolerate.

[Patrickov]

"Rape" means force someone to have sex with the enforcer, and in the enforcer's way. In principle, I agree with Member Rich's interpretation.

The report clearly stated that the offender did it as an act of deceit and was imposing his will upon his partner.

Even though I often see myself a misogynist, I have no problem with the woman standing up for herself and have the offender brought to the court and, in turn, convicted and sentenced.

[Patrickov]

Perfect counter-example. Would such a woman also go to jail for years, based on the mans accusation? It's the same thing but roles are reversed. Attempt at deceptive conception.

Regarding the woman has to endure pregnancy herself it is inevitable that she has to be treated more leniently, as she actually inflicted part of the abuse upon herself.

[Wellsy]

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/72856/OSJCL_V2N1_333.pdf

In reality, when jurisdictions make it a crime, without more, to have sexual intercourse without "consent," they are using "consent" in a legal sense to refer to something she does or experiences-including actually choosing sexual intercourse for herself-that occurs under such conditions as the jurisdiction deems sufficient for the sexual intercourse not to be a wrong to her. Otherwise, they would be taking the unprecedented position that an actor who beats and maims a woman until she yields, saying, "Just do what you want, but please don't hurt me any more," commits no sexual offense.
...
in order to prescriptively consent, a woman's acquiescence to sexual intercourse must be sufficiently free, informed, and competent to enable her to take responsibility in the eyes of the law for her choice. A woman's choice is not "free" if it is the product of pressures that, in the judgment of the jurisdiction at hand, unconditionally taint it, that is, pressures that taint her choice even in the event that she welcomes them.30

It seems that there needs to be clarity in regards to how to consider the harm without it being so broad as to lead to an inflation of unjust rape by deception claims. Though it is odd that even though he admitted to the particulars, that he should end up considered a rapist via deception and sentenced 4 years considering how reluctant the law usually is in convicting on rape by deception.

“RAPE-ADJACENT”: IMAGINING LEGAL RESPONSES TO NONCONSENSUAL CONDOM REMOVAL - ALEXANDRA BRODSKY*

Further, a regime demanding full reproductive transparency may inadvertently provide support for rape by deception claims. “Rape by deception” refers to the set of sexual acts that, in 2008, the Israeli Supreme Court described as such: “when a man or woman falsely represents himself or herself and, by deception, has intimate relations with someone who, had he known things to be as they were, would never have considered sexual intercourse with that person.”41 As a general matter, Anglo-American courts have refused to recognize rape by deception outside of two exceptional circumstances: where sex was represented by the wrongdoer as a medical procedure and where a man impersonated a woman’s husband.42

Theorists’ and judges’ justifications for rejecting rape by deception often appear invested in male sexual supremacy; consider the British judge who concluded fraud could not vitiate consent because then “many seductions would be rape,”43 as though violence against women must be uncommon and so any widespread sexual practices must be fine. Nonetheless, politically troubling patterns of enforcement in countries like Israel that do recognize rape by deception have largely discouraged feminist support for the category.44 Too often, courts use rape by deception to validate and operationalize bigotry, like a Jewish Israeli woman’s horror to learn she had slept with an Arab man45 or a partner’s horror to learn a man with whom she had been sexually intimate is transgender.46 For this reason, this Article seeks to avoid inadvertent support for “rape by deception” claims.

One might attempt to draw a meaningful distinction between the second, riskenhancement theory of “stealthing” and the theory underlying classic cases of rape by deception: one objects to the type of contact and the other objects to the unknown identity of the person with whom the contact occurs.47 A court can reasonably say, for example, that sexual contact between a victim’s genitals and the skin of a penis when he or she only consented to sexual contact with a condom over a penis is not akin to sexual contact with a person who he or she believed to be of a race, gender, or religion they, in fact, were not. As a matter of public policy, we want individuals to discriminate between forms of sexual contact based on risk but not based on their partners’ ethnicity, trans identity, or religion, common bases for rape by deception cases.48 Yet the practical and ethical line between reproductive misrepresentation and other forms of misrepresentation is far from crystal clear. Whether a person is trans or cis49 might bear on his or her reproductive capacity; a person may only want to bear a child whose parentage will permit membership in a certain religion or Indian tribe. A judge or advocate may be unwilling to endorse a theory of stealthing that will require such difficult line-drawing between permissible and impermissible forms of deception, perhaps out of prudishness or genuine concern to avoid legitimizing racist and transphobic rape by deception laws.

For these reasons, this Article will proceed under the first argument for why nonconsensual condom removal vitiates previous consent to sex: that touch by a condom is fundamentally physically different from touch by the skin of a penis and thus each requires separate consent. In the background, however, will remain the possibility that a different conceptual foundation for legal liability—the second line of argument detailed above—carries serious risks. Advocates must remain aware of these unintended doctrinal consequences given that the dividing line between the two theories of non-consent is, at best, porous, aspects of each informing (infecting?) the other. For example, strong preferences between touch by a condom and touch by a penis are inevitably rooted, at least in part, in different risks. One theory—the literal approach focused on different physical touches—is better than the other, but they are not so separate that the latter’s risks may be forgotten.

The above is why the author then moves onto another part in their paper to clarify how stealthing could be considered but with minimized risk of inflated claims of rape by deception.

[Pants-of-dog]

The woman would not have consented to sex had she known that the condoms were useless.

The man deliberately deceived her.

These are true facts.

You may now ho back to discussing the semantics of the word “rape”. Perhaps another word and another law need to be invented for this kind of situation.

Also, rape does not require force or violence. The use of soporific drugs or alcohol to make someone unconscious for the purposes of non-consensual sex is an example of rape that requires neither force nor violence.

[Beren]

She was deceived into having consensual sex, so she was not raped by definition and the guy should've been convicted accordingly.

Aside from that, people, men as well as women, tend to forget that having hetero sex is basically or naturally about having children, so they shouldn't be either surprised or out of their minds if it, accidentally or not, happens. I mean people must be out of their minds to call that rape.

[Puffer Fish]

Regarding the woman has to endure pregnancy herself it is inevitable that she has to be treated more leniently, as she actually inflicted part of the abuse upon herself.

Oh, and you consider pregnancy harder than the man having to pay child support?

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, and you consider pregnancy harder than the man having to pay child support?

Pregnancy requires certain impacts and risks to the body that paying money does not. So, yes, pregnancy is harder.

[Beren]

Oh, and you consider pregnancy harder than the man having to pay child support?

Pregnancy and raising a child is definitely harder than paying child support, do you actually question that?

[ness31]

Oh yeah...I like where this thread has gone!

[Igor Antunov]

Regarding the woman has to endure pregnancy herself it is inevitable that she has to be treated more leniently, as she actually inflicted part of the abuse upon herself.

But she doesn't have to endure a single thing. Abortion weeks into pregnancy takes 10-15 minutes at the clinic. If we go with your argument, then the man similarly has to endure years of child support payments which can ruin his livelihood and consequently life. Pregnancies only last 9 months.

Pregnancy requires certain impacts and risks to the body that paying money does not. So, yes, pregnancy is harder.

Being forced to give up a significant portion of the fruits of your labor for 17 years to somebody that deceived you is FAR more stressful and impactful on the body than a 9 month pregnancy. I can't believe I had to state something so obvious on a forum for adults.

Pregnancy and raising a child is definitely harder than paying child support, do you actually question that?

The bolded part is true in a scenario where the child is actually 'being raised', but we know you're arguing in bad faith given the context. Single mother household children are rarely raised by the mother. They are neglected and left to be raised by the system and the schools. This is as true here in white bogan communities in Australia as it is in black communities across the US. So you can't just blame lack of support systems. In Australia mothers get all the support they need to stay home and raise their kids. But lo and behold they fuck off to the pub and blow their cash at the pokies then bring random drunkard Dale home to punch up some other mans kids because their behaviour is basically out of control.

[AFAIK]

These problems never really existed when all sex was inside of marriages.

A woman officially "withdrawing her consent" would be tantamount to a divorce.
And men did not have to worry about being wrongly accused of rape if they were married to the woman.

It's interesting that that concept seems so alien to most of society now.

Just wanted to point out the PF doesn't recognise marital rape and thinks women are chattel who are owned by their husbands.

You can go back to believing that no one has died in childbirth and abortion is a fun day out now.

[Sivad]

poking a hole in a condom isn't rape but it is a despicable crime that should be severely punished. Secretly removing a condom is also fucking heinous and people who do it should be sentenced to 5 -10 in the penitentiary.

[ness31]

I think we are all in agreeance, (except for Rich of course, but he’s quite versed in the ‘unspoken law’) there need to be new laws and definitions passed for this kind of deceptive behaviour. At times, a deceptive act - or acts - could be even worse than a one off forced sexual encounter.
Why they define it as rape? Seems lazy

Where’s my Rabbi?

[Patrickov]

Oh, and you consider pregnancy harder than the man having to pay child support?

But she doesn't have to endure a single thing. Abortion weeks into pregnancy takes 10-15 minutes at the clinic. If we go with your argument, then the man similarly has to endure years of child support payments which can ruin his livelihood and consequently life. Pregnancies only last 9 months.

Seriously, does anyone really think ejaculation inside someone else's vagina can be Scot-free?

And as some other posters mentioned, it doesn't mean the woman in concern does not have to share the child-raising burden herself.

Abortion also causes damage to the body, and as I remember Member Antunov brings up the "woman initiated deceptive conception" himself, which means the woman in concern does want the pregnancy. So abortion is not supposed to be part of the discussion, as it defeats the premise of Member Antunov's very own question.