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

From further up thread...

"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 BUT, the woman could have checked about the use/non use of the condom and then withdrawn her consent when she saw that the penis did not have a condom on it.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."

I agree with this

What I grasped from the whole pill thing is,

If a womans consent is conditional on wearing a condom and he doesn't then its a total vialation,

If a woman tells a man he does not need a condom because shes on the pill, that is indeed a similar level of violation. I cant think of another way the comparison would work.

I want to clarify that I am presuming that the woman is unaware at the time of penetration that the man is not wearing a condom.

I agree totally that it is a vile thing to do.
It should absolutely be condemned. And prosecuted.

My thought last night, and my question is, if at the time you have sex/penetration you have consented with conditions, and you are unaware that those conditions have not been met, is that rape?

It would still be rape. Some rapists have a habit of raping unaware women e.g. when they're asleep or unconscious. Julian we're looking at you.

The criminal act is on the part of the criminal, not subject to what the victim knows. If someone has the cash under their mattress stolen and they don't know it's gone yet, it's still a robbery.

It's also why although sometimes when victims say they haven't been raped, but what they describe fits the definition of rape, it's still rape.

Rape is based on what the rapist does, not what the victim feels.

OK, that makes more sense.

Food for thought.

I just think it's incredibly simple.

If a builder tells you that he will use a specific material to do your patio and then he uses a different sort, you are under no obligation to pay him because he has changed the basis of your agreement. If I lie to my car insurance company and tell them I've got no points on my licence when the police have just given me six that morning, my insurance is null and void, because I lied about the basis of the agreement.

Why is it ONLY with men entering women's bodies, that the basis of the agreement is considered completely irrelevant by most people, when they can understand conditionality in all other, far less important areas of life?

I don't think it still is considered irrelevant, ER, and it seems that criminal law is now starting to reflect that.
Maybe it's shocking - if not surprising, exactly - that legal sanctions on this sort of behaviour are such a recent development, but it seems that at least there's potential for development here.

Yes the bizarre and in some ways alarming thing, is that the crimiinal law is well ahead of public opinion in this matter. The reason most rapes don't get to court, is because the CPS know that they won't get a guilty verdict as although there's no doubt that a rape was committed, no jury will convict in the circumstances that the law says they should.

That's an interesting point, ER. Do you know of post-SOA 2003 research on this?
My understanding is that there's been a lack of confidence (and possibility competence) on the part of CPS bringing rape cases forward, same with police failing to diligently record reported rapes, but my understanding - which is not based on very detailed knowledge - is that where cases do reach court there is quite a high conviction rape.
It would be interesting to know - if there's any way of finding out - whether it's general public perceptions or CPS perceptions of them that are trailing behind.

I think also that there isn't much case law in this area - which I suppose might influence CPS approaches.

Yes the conviction rate when you get to court is comparable with other cases, but 90% don't get there.

Not sure if there's any easily accessible body of research post 2003.

ER @ 10:22 - 'far less important areas of life' But it's generally thought to be the least important area, because it's about women's sexuality and sex is really for men, as any fule kno