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

In England and Wales the offence of causing sexual activity without consent would cover your scenario. You can give conditional consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. You have to have the freedom and capacity to consent.

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

Sorry I was not referring directly to lying about contraception there (in my example for the man I appreciate I did use the condom scenario but also used the general example of "some other conditional element to consent), my point was with regards to the breaking of conditions placed on consent to sexual intercourse as being something either gender could do without focussing on a specific example.
Which is why I then asked if you would only apply condityional consent to the condom issue or could you imagine any other situation where it may apply?

Sorry ... this may be because the thread is moving fast, but why/from what perspective are these distinctions important?

Though we may quibble about different legal definitions, in practical terms surely the point is that no-one wants to even come close to rape. Likewise, it seems to me unpleasant to set about adjudicating which lies and sexual violations are the most comparable in impact or the most/least excusable.

I'm just not following why we need to be answering/considering these questions.

mayor, I think there are relatively few situations where there's an exact parallel betwen what women might do by way of breaking consent and what men might do. One reason is because, rightly or wrongly, in UK law women are deemed incapable of rape, and only capable of sexual assault.

It would be possible for a woman to infect her partner with an STD unknowingly, and of course that would be as dispicable as a man doing the same to her. But I don't think there is any legal controversy here.

They're both cases, mayor - will check if there's much on line info about them. (There probably is.)

I think 'consent' is outlined in Sexual Offences Act 2003 s74(?) which, I think does leave scope for consent induced by fraud not to be consent - therefore possibility of rape via deception.

I'm not sure we need to, I was simply wondering where people, and as evidenced by asking here women who readily identify as feminists in particular, stood on the issue.
As I said at the top if this isn't the place to hold such a discussion I'm more than happy to apologise and drop it.

I consent to sleeping with my partner. One condition I place on the relationship is that he is not sleeping with any other women. If he was cheating on me and breaking that condition, he would not however be raping me.
I am really not sure, apart from the condom issue, what other elements could be worth discussing? lrd is spot on, what is the point of this discussion? mayorquimby if there is some agenda, or some specific point of view you want us to consider this from, do please let us know.

"mayor, I think there are relatively few situations where there's an exact parallel betwen what women might do by way of breaking consent and what men might do. One reason is because, rightly or wrongly, in UK law women are deemed incapable of rape, and only capable of sexual assault. "

Which is the issue that got me thinking today. Both genders could theoretically (even if unlikely) do the same thing and yet only one can be charged with rape. I was wondering if such a situation may serve to further polarise the issue of rape and perhaps negatively effect any potential conviction or further rape myths etc.`
And I wanted to know if others thought that you should be able to attach conditions to consent and what the effect of either gender should be.

Oh, no, I wasn't suggesting you delete it mayor, just that I think questioning the motivations for establishing a consensus on this issue is worthwhile.

What I'm getting at is that some people will use this sort of debate (not literally this one necessarily, but debates like this as they might happen anywhere) as a guide to 'how can I get away with doing something horrible, that isn't actually rape'. I know that sounds horribly paranoid, so I'll explain I don't mean this is conscious ... but I think when you promote the attitude that some sexual assaults are worse than others and that we can establish how and why, you have to be very careful not to also promote the attitude that some sexual assaults are really kind of ok.

I don't know if that makes sense but that is what strikes me, when we discuss relative cupability, that I just want to say 'look, it's all abusive behaviour, let's just say that'.

fair enough.
no agenda and I've gotten my answers it would appear.
Gonna drop it there so.
Cheers for replying.
Plumpdog gonna go look up those cases now, thanks for the party names.

Cross-posted, sorry.

I believe some countries do use terminology such that both men and women are deemed to have committed the same crime, where we in the UK use 'rape' for men and 'sexual assault' for women.

I think the problem with that is the unequal power dynamic lenin mentions.

I certainly don't think it should have any effect on convictions - are they not case-by-case (or should be)?

mayor - anyone, male or female could be charged with some sort of offence against the person if they knowingly infected them via deceit.
It's already been pointed out that a woman could not 'rape' a man.

As for whether you should be able to attach conditions to consent and what the effect of either gender should be - that seems like a vast and very different question, though it seems reasonable that anyone should be able to attach the condition that they are not infected with an illness where it could be avoidable.

Glad to be of assistance, mayor.

In order to commit rape, you need a penis -anything else is a different crime but the penalties are similar. Rape is most definitely a male crime and the law recognises that.

Yes, I think it's one of those ideals that could be put into practice once we'd got to the point where everyone believed women, not the other way around.

Going back to the original question - doesn't the Julian Assange rape/sexual assault case in Sweden centre on this issue?

I may be wrong, but I thought the central point was that at least one of the women had consented to sex with a condom once, but when they had sex again he did not use a condom (against her wishes). So it sounds like in some countries this is seen as a form of rape, though of course precise terminology and legal definitions are bound to vary between countries.

My opinion:-

Rape is non consensual penetration with a penis.

Penetration with something else (carrot, cucumber, finger, tongue) is not rape it is sexual assault whether or not it is done by woman or man.

If you give consent for a man to penetrate you with a penis it is not rape.

Whether or not it has a condom on does not impact on your consent for that penis to penetrate you.

It is a different offence (in my head) if you put conditions on the penis penetrating you.

If you start getting into the conditions / fraud thing, where does that end?

(s)He told me (s)he was single but it now turns out he was married to someone else?
(s)he told me (s)he loved me but he didn't
(s)he told me he/she was a millionaire but they aren't
(s)he told me they had been sterilised / was on the pill / was wearing a condom / was clean of STDs

They are all separate from the actual act of penetration. They may be dispicable things to say / do / lie about.

But that is not rape
.

I think anyone can put any conditions on consent that they want.

I can insist that anyone who wants to penetrate me, should dye his pubic hair pink and if he hasn't got pink pubic hair, then he's not allowed to penetrate me.

Any man is free to accept or reject that condition and if he's got any sense, bugger off and find a woman who won't impose such an onerous condition.

I find it bizarre that people are discussing whether women should be allowed to make their consent to sexual intercourse, conditional. FFS. Of course they should.

Good post ER.

I think as well, if you look at it the other way from yours Norma, it's a slippery slope from 'well she consented to the penis so it wasn't rape even though I didn't wear a condom' to 'well, she's consented in the past and I assumed she would want it this time' or to 'well, we're married and that means she's implicitly consented to sex whenever I feel like it', or 'well, she consented but then it was obviously hurting her, so I carried on anyhow'.

All of those arguments have been made and it's taken a lot of work to get people to accept these scenarios are still rape - saying that consent is consent no matter if the circumstances change midway through is turning back all thhat progress.