Where do you fall on "forgetting" contraception?

Your reading is incorrect - that would be sexual assault - however sexual assault can carry as high a sentence as rape.

We've kicked around the definitions a fair few times on FWR!

I read the "apart from" to mean that it stops being sexual assult and becomes rape at the point of penetration with object or penis.
If you are right then this law needs to be changed: if a man uses a strap-on to rape me, he's still f*king raping me.

You've misread it, Steina; that sentence starts with "apart from" to distinguish sexual assault (object) from rape (penis)

fairenuff this isn't the same as a man being lied to about the pill, there is always room for error so he should use a condom anyway.

It is exactly the same. The OP was lied to about him using a condom but even if he had, there is still room for error so she should use her own contraception anyway.

Which is why I said it would probably best not to have sex at all until she has her contraception sorted.

I haven't researched this as much as you but at the bottom it does state:
"...the penetration of the anus or vagina (however slight) with any object or the penis, which is rape."

Rape is defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - not archaic.

www.rapecrisis.org.uk/rapeampsexualviolence2.php

Re ha ha, It just seemed a strange point, as though some archaic technicality. Rape itself is obviously not haha.

Not sure what's ha ha about that...

Ok, do you want to start a new thread on that point and I'll join you there, as this is more of a support thread?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch That's very interesting, I suppose if you're leaving any ethical issues aside, rape does require a penis ha ha.

I wasn't using the current legal definition of rape, more an out-lying theoretical viewpoint ie consent can be qualified, so the Swedish law is not really what I was getting at.

This one seems cleared up now. But yes I'd have been livid too.

Steina, a woman cannot rape in UK law. A woman having sex with a man without his consent is committing sexual assault, not rape.

I'm also not sure that lack of a condom constitutes rape in UK law, though it does in Swedish law. In Sweden I am not sure if the driver is STI protection (in which case the pill issue wouldn't be comparable) or pregnancy prevention.

By taking away the outlined risk i wasn't trying to say it is of no value, I was focusing on a specific ethical point.
If a woman consents to sex with a condom and the man has sex with her without one, it is rape. If a man consents to sex with a woman who is on the pill and she knows she is not, how is that different? Does rape require the risk of pregnancy/death from pregnancy? No.

Anyway, I think his behaviour was pretty terrible but he has shown commitment (vasectomy) and relationships are complicated things so I hope all goes well with you mangobiscuit.

How can you take away the outlined risk? The risk is always higher for a woman not just in the case. (STD/pregnancy/death from pregnancy)

And in this case:

Man: if I have sex with this woman I run the risk of her forgetting her pill/getting ill and having diarrhea rendering the pill being ineffective/ choosing to not take her pill and lie to me.

If she gets pregnant I became a father. I can choose to accept or not accept that risk and using a simple and effective method of contraceptive.

The OP: If I get pregnant I will have to have an abortion or potentially die.

I am ina long term relationship with a man who I believe thinks my life has value and put my life and well being over the urges of his penis. I am currently on the list to get an IUD so I am taking control over my fertility but need my dh to be a decent human being until then.

But you can't take out the physical risk, steina. Unless of course you don't believe that there is any risk for women being pregnant and bearing children?

Well, as he's going to have a vasectomy, I think he is demonstrating that he does take it seriously.

Op: you do need to work out what contraception you will use until he gets a post-op all clear (and this can take several months).

Do you think he will now use condoms conscientiously? Or would you consider a coil knowing it would only be for a limited time?

VeggieSausage, I'm new here so hi, I think (if you take away the outlined physical risk) it is the same as a man being lied to about the pill; consent is given within parameters and those parameters are either met, or not met.

"there is always room for error so he should use a condom anyway"
Not sure I agree with this as there is room for error with any contraceptive, should we lesson his responsibility in this matter by suggesting she should have used a femidom?

Yes I did, and this pops out at me..

and agreed there would be no intercourse without condoms

However, on balance OP, I think that you are responsible for your own contraception. Even though you should be able to trust your dh, you obviously can't.If a man says he is not responsible for a pregnancy because the woman told him she was on the pill, or couldn't have children, or any other lie, he would be told that he is responsible for his own contraception.From now on OP, I would say no sex at all unless you know that your own contraception is sorted.

fairenuff this isn't the same as a man being lied to about the pill, there is always room for error so he should use a condom anyway. And while it is absolutely wrong to do that to someone.. it is not the same as risking another person (your wife's life!).

Op how did he indicate he was wearing a condom to you? Or did you just assume? I don't think he was right doing it if you had discussed it before, but it depends if it really was a miscommunication or not.

If you feel he wanted you to believe he was wearing a condom that while not that would be the end of the relationship for me.

Did you see the OP's second post?

He did not explicity say "I am wearing a condom", I did not explicity ask, but we've discussed this before (to avoid having to discuss it at the time) and agreed there would be no intercourse without condoms. As per usual I made a vague inquiry, and got an affirmative response. We clearly miscommunicated, and that won't be happening again. He pulled out before he came, so he thought that would have removed any risk, which was why he didn't think it was as bigger deal as I did.

it sounds like it was a huge miscommunication rather than a deliberate thing.

DH indicated that he was "dressed" when he wasn't. he lied about being covered, that IS deliberate!

Where is the miscommunication?

This story makes me so angry!
I have personal (ish) experience, my brother was tricked into believing his girlfriend was using contraception, she even convinced him to stop using condoms as she felt it would make sex "more spontaneous"!
While he loves his daughter all choice was taken from him which I find abhorrent.

It is not the same risk.

I'm glad to read your response - it sounds like it was a huge miscommunication rather than a deliberate thing. He was still in the wrong but it sounds like he genuinely didn't think that he was doing something wrong, rather than thinking, oh, I know it's wrong but screw it I'll do it anyway (knowing what was at stake if he'd done that that would be a huge red flag to me).

I think that the fact that he grovelled really does make a huge difference. And withdrawal also makes a big difference in practice - withdrawal before ejaculation without a condom is pretty much as safe as ejaculation with one on because condoms do fail. But the emotional / respect issue is still awful.

Um, WTF? You've been together that long and had two kids and he can't even be bothered to wear a condom? Big very red flag. Although I'm not sure how you couldn't tell - did he pretend to put one on?