Where do you fall on "forgetting" contraception?

[MangoBiscuit]

DH and I have been together over 8 years, 2 DC together. After most recent DC (now 5 months) he was the one to inform me initially that my consultant said it would be "inadvisable" for me to try to carry any more DCs " (which has since been relayed to me). We are currently waiting for me to get my IUD fitted so are using condoms (tried the POP, made me murderous!). DH indicated that he was "dressed" when he wasn't. He doesn't think this is a big deal as I "could just take the morning after pill."

I'm so fucking angry I can't even string together an answer, therefore he thinks I'm over-reacting. So am I over-reacting? Or if a man says's he's covered, should you believe him without inspection?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

www.rapecrisis.org.uk/rapeampsexualviolence2.php

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."

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.

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

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.

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!