Man who pierced holes in condoms is jailed for rape - court treating this more severely than "sex by deception"

[stumbledin]

I'm posting because it seems that although there have been some cases of "sex by deception" discussed on FWR I dont think any of them were convicted of rape.

But I may have misremembered and as far as the law is concerned and maybe there isn't actually any legal definition of "sex by deception".

Was happily surprised to see most comments agreed with the judgement.

metro.co.uk/2020/10/05/man-who-poked-holes-in-condoms-without-telling-partner-jailed-for-rape-13373324/

Brings the Assange story back to mind ...

It's not unknown for women to do this to, try to get pregnant (I know of a friend who contemplated it). Will they risk being charged in future?

I think I was remembering this case where a man lied about having a vasectomy but wasn't convicted www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3976297-Lying-about-vasectomy-doesn-t-make-it-rape

@SheepandCow

It's not unknown for women to do this to, try to get pregnant (I know of a friend who contemplated it). Will they risk being charged in future?

Do you think we could keep to the topic at hand, without ‘what aboutery’? Feel free to start a discussion on your topic, but it’s really bloody annoying when people start centring the poor menz on a topic about the rape of a woman.

I agree, OP, the comments were very heartening.

It's not unknown for women to do this to, try to get pregnant (I know of a friend who contemplated it). Will they risk being charged in future?

Do you think we could keep to the topic at hand, without ‘what aboutery’? Feel free to start a discussion on your topic, but it’s really bloody annoying when people start centring the poor menz on a topic about the rape of a woman

It is not "what aboutery". This is a very unusual decision given the over turning of the conviction of rape for lying about having a vasectomy. To me it leaves the law on sex by deception very unclear.

I can't stand the "poor menz" comment. It adds nothing to the credibility of your argument. Aside from which I didn't even read the post that way but more of a warning to women who do this.

It wouldn't be rape in their case but if a man piercing holes in a condom is rape then a woman doing the same must run a significant risk of committing a serious crime.

[quote stumbledin]I think I was remembering this case where a man lied about having a vasectomy but wasn't convicted www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3976297-Lying-about-vasectomy-doesn-t-make-it-rape[/quote]
He was convicted of rape but the conviction was quashed on appeal.

I think there needs to be clarification in these "sex by deception" cases.

The law is incredibly messed up and confused in this area. The broad principle seems to be it is deception if you trick someone about the nature and quality of the sex act itself. The court would probably say the nature and quality of the sex act with a woman who lied about birth control is the same as if she was telling the truth. She has lied about some feature of herself (like if she had lied and said she was really rich, or 20 years old, or unmarried) but she has not deceived him about the actual sex act itself. The sex is qualitatively the same in both cases. This explains the vasectomy case. In the condom case, the nature and quality of the sex act is different. One is sex with an intact condom, the other is sex with a broken condom, and he has deceived her into thinking she is having sex with an intact condom. The sex is qualitatively different in both cases. I'm not claiming this makes much sense, mind you. In this case it is also highly relevant that the perpetrator actually admitted to raping her, so that will be a major factor to take into account.

Yes. I didn't mean it as whataboutery. Quite the opposite. I'll probably get condemned for this but I have huge sympathy for women who do or consider doing this. I realise it's morally difficult but my first thoughts on reading this case was concern for those desperate women.

That's a good assessment WeeBisom. I think it does make sense although the distinction does feel like splitting hairs.

But if a man does this with a condom (or ‘stealthing’) he’s putting the partner at risk of std’s (incl HIV) as well as unplanned pregnancy. At least if a woman lies about being on contraception, she is putting her own body at risk of known pregnancy. I’m not condoning this btw but I think there is a difference if you’re the one left carrying and holding the baby.

In English law the definition of rape includes that it's penetration with a penis. Someone without a penis can commit sexual assault but not rape.

@WeeBisom

The law is incredibly messed up and confused in this area. The broad principle seems to be it is deception if you trick someone about the nature and quality of the sex act itself. The court would probably say the nature and quality of the sex act with a woman who lied about birth control is the same as if she was telling the truth. She has lied about some feature of herself (like if she had lied and said she was really rich, or 20 years old, or unmarried) but she has not deceived him about the actual sex act itself. The sex is qualitatively the same in both cases. This explains the vasectomy case. In the condom case, the nature and quality of the sex act is different. One is sex with an intact condom, the other is sex with a broken condom, and he has deceived her into thinking she is having sex with an intact condom. The sex is qualitatively different in both cases. I'm not claiming this makes much sense, mind you. In this case it is also highly relevant that the perpetrator actually admitted to raping her, so that will be a major factor to take into account.

Thank you for this, you've laid this out really well, and it does actually make sense.

Which, in a way, does make mr agree with the vasectomy case, because otherwise we'd have women who say they are in the pull (or are, but forgot to take it, potentially? ) also being charged with serious sex crimes.

@safariboot

In English law the definition of rape includes that it's penetration with a penis. Someone without a penis can commit sexual assault but not rape.

Has any one suggested otherwise? No.

This case is not solely about deception but also the consequences of it — an unwanted pregnancy. This has direct physical consequences on a woman but not on a man. Thus it would be far harder for a man to bring any case for any kind of sexual assault. Perhaps there could a civil case but until someone does bring a case it will delve into whataboutery rather than a discussion of a complex legal matter. We have a real judgement here produced by trained legal minds and it is a difficult case enough as it is without worrying about assymetric hypotheticals.

All sorts of judgements by trained legal minds have been incredibly damaging to women. I am not sure what I feel about this, its useful to hear peoples views.

I read about this yesterday in the Daily Mail online (not my usual news source) and I was very disappointed at the comments as so many were saying that the sentence was too harsh and women do this to men all the time blah blah blah.... very sad to be reminded yet again that anonymity makes people say what they really think.

@zanahoria

This case is not solely about deception but also the consequences of it — an unwanted pregnancy. This has direct physical consequences on a woman but not on a man. Thus it would be far harder for a man to bring any case for any kind of sexual assault. Perhaps there could a civil case but until someone does bring a case it will delve into whataboutery rather than a discussion of a complex legal matter. We have a real judgement here produced by trained legal minds and it is a difficult case enough as it is without worrying about assymetric hypotheticals.

I don't see this as what aboutery. I think that's a really closed minded take on this.

In this particular case the deceived person was female running the risk of pregnancy and an STD. In the case of a man the risk of an STD applies equally if a condom has been deliberately sabotaged.

So far as the unwanted pregnancy I know the standard view on here is if men don't want to run the risk of being fathers they should simply never have penetrative sex and tough luck if a condom was sabotaged. You might sweep aside the chance of pregnancy occurring. It's a bit more difficult to sweep aside the protection from STDs.

Still up to you if you're happy not to bother thinking how this decision could be applied the other way around. And don't bother with "women never do this" - they do.

I know the standard view on here is if men don't want to run the risk of being fathers they should simply never have penetrative sex and tough luck if a condom was sabotaged.

Point out one single post, where a woman has said it’s the man’s fault, if the condom is sabotaged. Just one.

It is frequently said on here that no method of contraception is 100% reliable and if men don't want to become fathers they shouldn't have penetrative sex.

Interesting, given your complaint about what aboutery, you fixated on that part rather than the directly analagous point that what would the position be for a woman who deliberately sabotaged a condom and exposed her partner to an increased risk of an STD.

It is frequently said on here that no method of contraception is 100% reliable and if men don't want to become fathers they shouldn't have penetrative sex.

I think you'd really need to be very fixated on not becoming a father to consider giving totally up on the odd bit of piv every now and again.

I think they're trying to draw a distinction around physically piercing holes in condoms (factually deliberate) that doesn't open up a route for abusive men to use the courts to persecute women for genuine contraceptive failures.

I think the distinction is the sex act vs the consequences. You can consent to a sex act, so having ejaculate in you or not, but you can't consent to consequences intended or otherwise. By piercing the condom he changed the sex act itself regardless of the impact on the consequences you anticipated.

Then whether a woman is on the pill or has a coil or a man has a vasectomy is irrelevant because the sex act that was consented to was piv without a condom and that's what happened.

The why you give consent is less relevant than the consent itself.