Man in UK jailed for "rape" for poking hole in condom - Page 3 - 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.
#15126505
@Igor Antunov

Please learn to use the quote function properly.

Igor Antunov wrote: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.


No, spending money has no impact on your actual physical body. That is not how biology works.

Note that actual parents (those of us who raise our kids instead if sending money) spend far more on out kids than the people who just spend money. So if you want to compare financial burdens, the absent father is still not bearing as much of a burden as the one who got pregnant.
#15126629
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Igor Antunov

Please learn to use the quote function properly.



No, spending money has no impact on your actual physical body. That is not how biology works.

Note that actual parents (those of us who raise our kids instead if sending money) spend far more on out kids than the people who just spend money. So if you want to compare financial burdens, the absent father is still not bearing as much of a burden as the one who got pregnant.


0) No, I quote how I please.
1) Earning money has an impact on your physical body and mind. To spend money you have to earn it first.
2) The absent father is not receiving any kind of financial support, the mother is, present or not in her kids raising.
#15126642
Igor Antunov wrote:0) No, I quote how I please.
1) Earning money has an impact on your physical body and mind. To spend money you have to earn it first.
2) The absent father is not receiving any kind of financial support, the mother is, present or not in her kids raising.


0) Then you will hopefully understand when people ignore your replies.

1) Not necessarily. Pregnancy, on the other hand, does and runs serious risks.

2) No, the present parent receives no support. The child does. And this does not contradict my point about who has the greater financial burden.
#15128314
Sivad wrote: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.

I just don't think women should be able to have the expectation that she can allow a man to ejaculate in her vagina and she has the right for nothing to go wrong. I think when she allows a man to have sex with her, she inherently consents to some risk of pregnancy.

I'm not saying the man here is not to blame at all, but I believe it's wrong to assign 100% of the blame to him.

It's unreasonable for the woman to think she can have vaginal sex with absolutely no risk whatsoever of getting pregnant. It's not something she has a right to.

The same way a man doesn't have the "right" to have sex with absolutely zero chance of her getting pregnant and him having to pay child support.

If she was the one who was suspected to have likely poked the hole in the condom, would we absolve the man of any obligation to have to pay child support? Of course we would not. The man would still be seen as being responsible, under the law.


My point is, maybe the man should spend 9 months or so in prison, and be responsible for a few financial "damages", but it's ridiculous to say that the man impregnated the woman completely against her will and so he should have to spend 4, 5, or even 10 years in prison.
#15128325
Puffer Fish wrote:I just don't think women should be able to have the expectation that she can allow a man to ejaculate in her vagina and she has the right for nothing to go wrong. I think when she allows a man to have sex with her, she inherently consents to some risk of pregnancy.


And I do not think you should be allowed to consent to things for women when the women themselves have not consented.
#15128415
Pants-of-dog wrote:And I do not think you should be allowed to consent to things for women when the women themselves have not consented.

Well, maybe if I can explain it this way:
I think she has some level of rights, but those rights are greatly mitigated.

I don't think this should be viewed as a black & white thing. (But I know that's mentally hard to do)

Or think of it this way, there are TWO different perspectives here, and each one has some truth to it. So we need to be able to blend those perspectives together.


She consented to have sex, and sometimes when you have sex you get pregnant anyway, even when the woman, or the man, or both the woman and the man, did not intend for her to get pregnant.

Yes, she does have some right for a man not to go out of his way to sabotage the contraceptives, but it's not an absolute right, in the sense that you can't put all the blame on him if she ends up getting pregnant.
She chose to engage in sex, and so the blame can never be 100% the man's if she gets pregnant, even if he sabotaged the contraceptives.

When she consents to sex, she does not have an absolute right not to get pregnant.
She only has reduced rights.
Which means the man might still deserve some punishment, but it should be far less than it would be if we fully blamed the pregnancy on him.

It's not like he snuck in in the middle of the night and used a turkey baster to impregnate a woman he did not know without her knowing.

If you allow a penis to go inside your vagina, you relinquish some of your consent to being impregnated.
Maybe not all of it, but I would say the majority of it.

Again, just because what the man did was despicable does not mean the legal blame should be 100% assigned to him for the woman's condition of being pregnant.
Even if her being pregnant most likely would not have happened if the man did not do what he did.

When the woman spreads her legs, she gives up some of her rights.

I just think it's ridiculous in these modern days women are saying "I consent to sex but I don't consent to this or that little detail".
It's a lump sum. When you consent to sex, you implicitly consent to a wider range of things. We make it extremely complicated, and like a man-trap, when the man can be severely prosecuted for all sorts of things in the bedroom.

Maybe let me put it to you this way. After consensual sex has begun, forcing a woman to do something in the bedroom after she is screaming "No, no!" is analogous to robbery. Yes, it's totally understandable that that should be prosecuted.
But these other situations of "doing something without her knowing" are analogous to prosecuting cases of "fraud" in the bedroom. And I think those punishments have to be much lighter, because this risks going into ridiculous territory.
We are not talking about a sex act being forced upon her because she was consenting to sexual intercourse the whole time.
It was just there was a certain element of that intercourse she hadn't knowingly consented to. But that's not rape.
"Tricking" a woman might be despicable but it's not rape.
#15128421
Puffer Fish wrote:I just don't think women should be able to have the expectation that she can allow a man to ejaculate in her vagina and she has the right for nothing to go wrong.

Quite right I just don't think car drivers and passengers should be able to have the expectation that they can go out for a drive and for nothing to go wrong.

I think when she allows a man to have sex with her, she inherently consents to some risk of pregnancy.

I think when ever someone steps into a car they inherently consent to some risk of death, which is why I like nothing more on an evening to go out with my hunting rifle and shoot a few car drivers.

I'm not saying the man here is not to blame at all, but I believe it's wrong to assign 100% of the blame to him.

When I shoot these car drivers if they or their passengers die or suffer serious injury, I'm not saying I'm not to blame at all, but I believe it is wrong to assign 100% of the blame to me.
#15128422
Puffer Fish wrote:
If she was the one who was suspected to have likely poked the hole in the condom, would we absolve the man of any obligation to have to pay child support? Of course we would not. The man would still be seen as being responsible, under the law.


The man should be absolved and the woman should go to prison for a very long time.


it's ridiculous to say that the man impregnated the woman completely against her will and so he should have to spend 4, 5, or even 10 years in prison.


That's not ridiculous, poking a hole in a condom is impregnating the woman completely against her will, that's precisely what it is. I don't even care about pregnancy or STDs though, it's the violation of consent that's criminal and it requires severe punishment. If I was a judge passing sentence I could give a man or woman 10 years for that without a second thought, that kind of sociopathic behavior can't be tolerated.
#15128427
Puffer Fish wrote:
Maybe let me put it to you this way. After consensual sex has begun, forcing a woman to do something in the bedroom after she is screaming "No, no!" is analogous to robbery.


It's not analogous to robbery, it's straight up fucking rape.




But these other situations of "doing something without her knowing" are analogous to prosecuting cases of "fraud" in the bedroom. And I think those punishments have to be much lighter, because this risks going into ridiculous territory.
We are not talking about a sex act being forced upon her because she was consenting to sexual intercourse the whole time.
It was just there was a certain element of that intercourse she hadn't knowingly consented to. But that's not rape.
"Tricking" a woman might be despicable but it's not rape.


I agree that it's not rape but it is a very serious violation of consent. It's a depraved act that demands severe punishment.
#15128432
Sivad wrote:I agree that it's not rape but it is a very serious violation of consent. It's a depraved act that demands severe punishment.

Maybe, just maybe, if she consents to sex, she shouldn't have the right to have to consent to all those details of the sex, unless she specifically negotiates them.

You see, you will say that "She did not agree to unprotected sex and putting on the condom showed she had a contract for protected sex."

You are using that to infer an implicit agreement existed.

Unless there was some sort of contract signed and viewed by a third party witness, I think it is fair to assume there was no explicit agreement.
#15128436
Sivad wrote:That's not ridiculous, poking a hole in a condom is impregnating the woman completely against her will, that's precisely what it is. I don't even care about pregnancy or STDs though, it's the violation of consent that's criminal and it requires severe punishment.

But see, you are assuming a woman has the right to have sex and not get pregnant.

That is not necessarily the case.

(Now, I might be willing to agree she has some right to have sex and not to get pregnant, but it is small right, relatively speaking. I mean, it's not like the man snuck into some strange woman's house he did not know and used a turkey baster to impregnate her without her being aware)
#15128444
Sivad wrote:go poke holes in all your condoms then, dude, I don't really give a fuck.


All I was trying to do is show you there is a legitimate worldview where my perspective is right.

I don't disagree that you might have a worldview too, since obviously there is a big group of people who seem to think as you on this sort of issue.

My worldview probably would have been the more popular one 100 years ago.
#15128471
Puffer Fish wrote:Well, maybe if I can explain it this way:
I think she has some level of rights, but those rights are greatly mitigated.

I don't think this should be viewed as a black & white thing. (But I know that's mentally hard to do)

Or think of it this way, there are TWO different perspectives here, and each one has some truth to it. So we need to be able to blend those perspectives together.


She consented to have sex, and sometimes when you have sex you get pregnant anyway, even when the woman, or the man, or both the woman and the man, did not intend for her to get pregnant.

Yes, she does have some right for a man not to go out of his way to sabotage the contraceptives, but it's not an absolute right, in the sense that you can't put all the blame on him if she ends up getting pregnant.
She chose to engage in sex, and so the blame can never be 100% the man's if she gets pregnant, even if he sabotaged the contraceptives.

When she consents to sex, she does not have an absolute right not to get pregnant.
She only has reduced rights.
Which means the man might still deserve some punishment, but it should be far less than it would be if we fully blamed the pregnancy on him.

It's not like he snuck in in the middle of the night and used a turkey baster to impregnate a woman he did not know without her knowing.

If you allow a penis to go inside your vagina, you relinquish some of your consent to being impregnated.
Maybe not all of it, but I would say the majority of it.

Again, just because what the man did was despicable does not mean the legal blame should be 100% assigned to him for the woman's condition of being pregnant.
Even if her being pregnant most likely would not have happened if the man did not do what he did.

When the woman spreads her legs, she gives up some of her rights.

I just think it's ridiculous in these modern days women are saying "I consent to sex but I don't consent to this or that little detail".
It's a lump sum. When you consent to sex, you implicitly consent to a wider range of things. We make it extremely complicated, and like a man-trap, when the man can be severely prosecuted for all sorts of things in the bedroom.

Maybe let me put it to you this way. After consensual sex has begun, forcing a woman to do something in the bedroom after she is screaming "No, no!" is analogous to robbery. Yes, it's totally understandable that that should be prosecuted.
But these other situations of "doing something without her knowing" are analogous to prosecuting cases of "fraud" in the bedroom. And I think those punishments have to be much lighter, because this risks going into ridiculous territory.
We are not talking about a sex act being forced upon her because she was consenting to sexual intercourse the whole time.
It was just there was a certain element of that intercourse she hadn't knowingly consented to. But that's not rape.
"Tricking" a woman might be despicable but it's not rape.


No, consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy.

This would be like me arguing that since you consented to get a kiss, you also consented to receiving anal sex from the person’s roommate.
#15128487
Puffer Fish wrote:80 years ago it did.


Not quite.

It would be more correct to say that 80 years ago, sexism and misogyny were so ingrained in society that most people did not care that women did not have the right to withdraw consent or choose to bot be pregnant.

Good thing that is ending.
#15128658
Yeah, but who consents to a kiss? One person has to pucker up. There’s a lot of risk involved for the planter. Anal sex on the other hand is almost universally a “fuck no” :D
#15128712
Heterosexual anal intercourse (HAI) is not an uncommon behavior with 36% of women and 44% of men 25–44 years old in the United States reporting ever having HAI in their lifetime.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... etime%20(1).


So much for "Fuck no".

China is working on what it calls a "dual-cir[…]

Election 2020

@ingliz I find these clips in black and white o[…]

@Wellsy one should the Socratic method when tryi[…]

November 26, Wednesday President Lincoln goes d[…]