Can I ask a for your opinions on an aspect of rape?

[mayorquimby]

Hey I'm a man and just wanted to see if this was ok with the ettiquette (sp?) of this section of the board. I didn't want to be guilty of trolling by accident (that's not my intention) nor do I want to be seen as trying to post in an area which I'm not wanted or to give the impression that I was trying to encroach on an area which I could understand if other posters wanted to keep it female only.
I was just looking for some feminist perspective to a question I have on an aspect/type of rape (so there's no secrecy it pertains to the issue of consent wrt a man saying he'll wear a condom and then not doing so) and AIBU can often turn into a bit of an argument merry-go-round plus I'm looking for other opinions to perhaps shape or clarify my own perspective as I feel there may be issues I'm missing.
However as I said above I don't want to post somewhere that isn't suitable or where perhaps my posting may seem unintentionally antagonistic or as though I'm just stirring, so if this is not the place for that I'd be greatful to be told so before I jump in two-footed.
cheers either way

So what's the question?

Legally speaking it would most likely not be a rape, as the penetration was consensual.

Morally it is fucking vile and disgusting to put your semen inside a woman who has said she does not want you to ejaculate inside her. That man is placing her at risk of unwanted pregnancy and infections. And it is just wrong to betray someone's trust when you have agreed on the contraception you will use.

I do not think that sort of deception is in any way excusable. BUT, the woman could have checked about the use/non use of the condom and then withdrawn her consent when she saw that the penis did not have a condom on it. If he proceeded anyway, of course that is rape.

What sort of man would agree to use a condom and then not use it or take it off when she wasn't aware? Why would you do that? Surely the risk of having an unwanted child and 18 years of csa payments would put most of them off?

It isn't quite the same if the condom discussion took place at a different time to the actual sex. Many people who use condoms for contraception have got carried away in the heat of the moment. That is the fault of both partners if they forget contraception, not just the man. But if he said right before sex "yes of course I will put a condom on" and then tricked her into having unprotected sex, that is abominable behaviour and, IMO, ought to be a criminal offence.

IMO if it's agreed you are wearing a condom then wear one, if not don't bother having sex with someone. that's deceitful and could lead to STIs doing the rounds.

Well essentially I'm interested in whether or not people believe such an incident would be sufficient to vitiate consent and classify such an incident as rape in as much as they believe that the agreement to use protection in a sexual encounter is intrinsic enough to the act of sexual intercourse and consent to it.
I definitely think it's sufficient to null the consent, however from a practical issue I wonder if conviction rates for cases involving sexual consent obtained via fraud (whether it be an agreement to use a condom or perhaps falsely claiming a clean bill of sexual health) may be improved by classing them as serious sexual assaults. The reason I've thought this is that while I accept rape is rightly a gender specific crime, the obtaining of consent to a sexual intercourse is as easily executed by either gender and I have wondered if some jurists may feel as though the issue is somewhat artificially polarised because someone may put the argument to them that if Man x is on trial for rape, yet had woman Y done exactly the same thing it would only be sexual assault.
While both are serious offences and carry similar sentences, one definitely sounds worse.
As I've said these are just thoughts I've had as an initial reaction, and they feel slightly counter-intuitive so I'm wondering if I'm missing something and just in general looking for other opinions (whether I agree with them or not) so I can consider my own position and hopefully form a more rounded and informed view.

Oh, I see!

Morally, completely unacceptable, obviously.

Legally, possible STD transmission, which I think could amount to ABH or similar.

"Legally speaking it would most likely not be a rape, as the penetration was consensual."

well it may be open for argument in Ireland as the DPP v C in 2001 focussed on "facts material to the act" which has lead to some academic debate wrt issues such as STI or falsely claiming the use of a condom but it hasn't been tested before the courts yet. Which is what got me wondering today. As I've said these are faqirly initial thoughts and I'm looking to round out my opinion.

You can't say someone raped you because you agreed to have sex and they told you they had a clean bill of health but that was not true. That is not what rape is. Rape is penetrating the body of another person without their consent. I was not aware that "consent obtained via fraud" was actually something that existed. You either consent to sex, or you don't.
However, knowingly spreading sexually transmitted infections is clearly very very wrong, and people have been prosecuted and convicted for doing so.

I thopught SOA 2004(?) included inducement into intercourse by way of deception as a form of rape?

I totally agree with Kat

Well that's what I'm asking, how far do people think you can give conditional consent and would the breaking of these conditions suffice to vitiate any consent given.If a woman explicitly tells a man she will only have sex with him if he wears a condom or perhaps in the case of a cheating partner undergoes testing for sexually transmitted diseases etc. should these conditions then become seen as intrinsic to her consent to sex?

I was not aware that "consent obtained via fraud" was actually something that existed. You either consent to sex, or you don't.

well in R v Williams it was rape because a vocal coach represented that it would improve a pupils singing
in R v Flattery a dr. represented that it was medically beneficial.

Are you really asking if women lie about being on the pill they are committing rape? If so then no, and you are bang out of order insinuating it.

Have you looked at Devonald and Jheeta, mayor?

I think it is rape. I am not a lawyer but morally it is very wrong.

I think a woman has the right to consent, fully informed, to what goes into her vagina. If she's consented on teh condition the man wears a condom, she's not consented to the sex act without it. IMO.

May I ask what the aim of the discussion is? Are we trying to determine the law, or the morality, or what?

If the woman with the cheating partner is not satisfied that he has been tested then she should just withdraw her consent full stop. Solves the problem. If she ditches him for cheating, she solves two problems!

I don't think you can give conditional consent. I think it devalues the crime of rape to include situations where you have trusted that someone did not have an infection, but you were wrong. It would also have to be proven that the partner knew perfectly well they were infected.

As I have said, I still think that such deception is utterly abominable.

As for the use or non use of the condom, there is a whole spectrum of situations that I can think of ranging from "no, they were both responsible" to "hmm yes I think that is criminal behaviour"

kat, I see what you're saying about devaluing the crime.

It just makes me shudder to think of the situation described in the OP, and I think it is violation, even if not rape, to not use a condom when promised.

Incidentally, though obviously lying about being on the pill is a horrible thing to do, the two aren't directly comparable and IMO shouldn't be discussed on the same thread - women can't get men pregnant, and the pill was never intended to protect against STDs.

No my aim is simply to see what others think and what faults they can see in the initial opinion I formed.
If people want to suggest what they believe the law should be and reasons why I'd be interested.
As I said at the start I think places like AIBU could turn into a slanging match fairly quickly and I think that this board generally throws up ideas and opinions which I may not agree with but also that I may not have thought about so I thought this would be the best place to profer opinions which might challenge any preconceptions i have.

"Are you really asking if women lie about being on the pill they are committing rape? If so then no, and you are bang out of order insinuating it."
No I'm not. because women can't commit rape. What I am asking however is that if someone believes that a man lying about using protection or some other conditional element to consent is committing rape, then what do they say of women who could perpetrate the exact same thing being charged with an offence which is viewed as not being as serious by many.
But also do people believe you can give such conditional consent, and if you can, does the breaching of these conditions vitiate the consent as a whole?

"Have you looked at Devonald and Jheeta, mayor?"

No never heard of either. what do they concern? are the cases/books/authors?

Sorry, can you clarify what your initial opinion is?

I appreciate you trying to be polite on here but I get teh feeling you are being so careful to qualify your posts I'm finding it hard to understand what you actually think.

I do not think women lying about contraception is 'the exact same thing' - how so?

Legally (in UK) it is not rape. Morally it is repugnant, but I personally wouldn't class it as rape.

How far would you extend it leningrad? only with regards to condoms or is there any other condition one you think one could validly place on consent?

Well said lenin.

sorry cross post leningrad. I'll adress your question now so we don't get lost in replying to posts made while typing the next