This wasn't in the rulebook

TheCameraLady · 2013-04-25T12:25:17+00:00

I actually agree with this ruling, as long as it rolls both ways, of course.

It makes entirely perfect sense for somebody to consent to sex, but not to specific acts during sex, or to withdraw consent halfway through intercourse. If you're having sex with somebody, they have already given prior consent, they suddenly tell you to stop, and you do not... well yes, from that moment onward, you would be raping your previously consenting partner.

The headline of the article is overly dramatic but the content of the article is logical.

My only problem with it would be if it were implemented in a one-sided manner - aka women have the power to consent to a sex session but not consent to specific logistics of that session or acts during the session, but men do not. And considering that would give men the power to consent to sex but not consent to, say, his partner sabotaging his condom, it's a real possibility that this ruling may be enforced one-sidedly...

If it's not, though, there's no problem.

Stephen_Morgan · 2013-04-25T10:18:10+00:00

Good as long as it applies the other way around. Now we can say "you have permission to use the penis, but you may not produce an ejaculation" and we don't need to worry about wearing protection because she'll be a convicted rapist and won't be able to have custody so she'll have an abortion.

oneiorosgrip · 2013-04-25T12:41:01+00:00

Imagine this with the sexes reversed. A couple agrees to sex with the stipulation that the man will pull out to prevent pregnancy. When the man tries to pull out, the woman holds him down and forces him to finish inside, instead, and says, "I'll do what I want, because you're my husband."

That would be rape, regardless of whether she got pregnant, would it not?

undervannsjeger · 2013-04-25T11:10:06+00:00

can I have the full article please?

zpgnbg · 2013-04-25T11:33:24+00:00

The Metro is an absolutely abysmal paper.

The only reason it's free is the fact that if they charged it would be classed as theft.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-04-25T13:26:06+00:00

First sentence: a man can be convicted of rape even if a woman consents.

I love how gender neutral this ruling is. . .

CrossHook · 2013-04-25T12:54:06+00:00

Everything is Rape

-Feminism

notnotnotfred · 2013-04-25T13:04:34+00:00

You may thrust 46 times.

If you only thrust 45, you're not a real man, and I probably won't bother having sex with you again.

If you thrust 47, you've raped me.

OuiCrudites · 2013-04-25T13:18:12+00:00

I am among the first to call Feminists on their aggressive efforts to criminalize male sexuality, but this is not an example of that. Based on the details, this is rape.

smaegaf · 2013-04-25T13:58:15+00:00

this is a slap in the face to all the women who screamed "STOP" and scratched the face of their attacker.

Their experience is now equal to those who maybe felt a little uncomfortable or regretful or maybe kinda didnt want to maybe.

How to these rape support groups even work now? Are they a mix of feminists who believe rape doesnt require physically contact and women whose lives were ruined by a traumatic attack or abusive husband? How would these two groups get along?

I guess its like when people with lily white skin and 3% indigenous genetics turn up in Aboriginal groups wishing to share their hardship of being black and disenfranchised.

2013-04-25T14:10:38+00:00

Ok. I thought of something that will make both sides happy: sex-bots.

Future Men can have as much sex as they want and only interact with women as they would with other men, Women can breathe easy knowing that they won't be victimised by would be rapists.

TheFarnell · 2013-04-25T12:42:49+00:00

This is a case of terribly media bias implying the law only applies to men or that only men do this, but the law and ruling itself is perfectly reasonable. First line after the sensationalist article:

He would still be guilty if he did something she asked him not to, a High Court panel led by England and Wales’ most senior judge decreed.

Seems pretty straightforward, no? If two people are having sex, one of them clearly says beforehand they don't consent to X act during sex, and the other imposes X act during sex, that's rape.

phukka · 2013-04-25T17:15:17+00:00

The ~~terrorists~~ feminists are winning, apparently.

Lunatcharsky · 2013-04-25T13:51:23+00:00

WTF is this shit? Any more info? I want to read just what prompted this supreme idiocy of a headline.

starbuxed · 2013-04-25T18:18:59+00:00

Update all sex is rape.

2013-04-25T14:21:30+00:00

Bad headline! You left part out.

He would still be guilty if he did something she asked him not to, a High Court panel led by England and Wales’ most senior judge decreed.

A man would no longer be said to have consent because he ‘deliberately ignored’ the limitations put on sex, it was decided.

EvilKetchupCow · 2013-04-25T18:36:07+00:00

I'm sorry no. If you choose to have sex no matter what method you use for contraceptives there a chance you can get pregnant. Consenting to sex is consenting to the fact that you may get pregnant.

Womby314 · 2013-04-25T14:38:23+00:00

In other news, small round purple fruits can still be carrots.

Fenrisulfr22 · 2013-04-25T17:02:15+00:00

What about sex with a consenting partner who said (lied) that she was on birth control? Could that be considered rape?

springy · 2013-04-25T17:40:54+00:00

The only concern I have is, as a judge once pointed out, "you can say 'no' before sex; you can probably even say 'no' during sex, but you cannot say 'no' after sex".

Many years ago, a women I knew was really miserable because her boyfriend had left her. She went on a "have sex with anybody" spree for about two months. Afterwards, she claimed "they all took advantage of me, because I was at a low point in my life". I hope this law does not mean she could now say that they raped her, because she wasn't quite herself when she said yes to them all (in fact, she actively pursued them).

Fallout · 2013-04-26T00:15:55+00:00

So, let me get this straight. No means no, but "yes" can also mean no sometimes too?

ttnorac · 2013-04-25T14:34:11+00:00

Let me clarify. If the woman changes her mind the next day, and doesn't want to be called a slut, she has the option of changing sex to rape. I think they have a 6 month window to file the paperwork.

Now keep in mind it is still not rape, it's just an easy way for a woman to avoid responsibility with no repercussions of any kind.

englad · 2013-04-25T18:12:59+00:00

heh, I saw this today on the bus, Mancunians ftw!

TL;DR if you do something the woman doesn't want during sex, it's rape. I.E. Not pulling out when you've agreed too.

Mrlord99 · 2013-04-25T22:41:01+00:00

I enjoy the top comment because it's logical, but as an 18 y/o virgin, is there anything a guy can do in bed w/o it possibly being construed as rape? I mean damn. And yes, I know not all women are like this, but come on. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere

AceGeister · 2013-04-25T23:37:05+00:00

We let it be in the rule book when we stood by and allowed rulings to set this precedent lest we be deemed chauvinist pigs. Same concept as affirmative action. I believe in equality, but after it's accomplished, if you give someone an inch they'll take a mile - deep down they didn't want equality - they wanted superiority. This is a natural instinct and emotion for almost every species on this planet, unfortunately.

theskepticalidealist · 2013-04-25T11:41:26+00:00

I somewhat sympathise with this story in theory, but she is a moron if she thinks him pulling out is a good way to avoid pregnancy. If he was that controlling, why didnt she go to the police before then? I dont buy it.

Funcuz · 2013-04-25T12:31:58+00:00

I agree in principle that it could still be considered rape (technically) if the male does something the female specifically told him not to do. Having said that , it has to be a reasonable thing to ask. For instance , if she says "Yes , let's have sex but don't stuff it in my pooper." well , okay , if he does , I could agree that that was some form of rape. On the other hand , "Yes , let's have sex but don't drop your load in me." is unreasonable because in the real world , the "pull out method" has resulted in millions of kids despite the wishes of those doing the bango-tango.

Having sex leads to ejaculation ... that's the whole point of it if a male is involved. Agreeing to sex but not to internal ejaculation is like agreeing to make dinner but refusing to use heat. Good luck with that.

AtheistConservative · 2013-04-25T16:16:20+00:00

While conditional consent makes a lot of sense, with the new feminist standard of enthusiastic consent, this is terrifying legal territory. Essentially a woman would have to be screaming "OH GOD YES!" the entire time, for the man to have any shield against it later being deemed rape.

HeyZuesHChrist · 2013-04-25T17:03:08+00:00

Alternate headline: All sex is rape.

mixedveggies · 2013-04-25T17:44:45+00:00

Someone can say yes to sex but that doesn't mean they are legally able to give consent, such as a teenager, or someone out of their mind on drugs or alcohol.

HardAsValyrianSteel · 2013-04-25T15:46:16+00:00

I'm afraid the radicals are going to try and take advantage of this.

Vordreller · 2013-04-25T16:31:58+00:00

Hole in the market: consent forms to be filled in during sex.

Every single action either partner takes, they first have to fill in and sign a consent form.

It will be quite simple: A large field for the names of all those involved, a field for the name of the act(or description), some fields for who is doing the act and who is receiving and a standard area at the bottom to put your autograph.

25 cent a piece. You'll need one for every single move you make, for all people involved. For everyone in the entire world.

Cha-ching!

americanfad · 2013-04-26T03:12:50+00:00

Once both my female partner and I agreed to withdraw. However, as I was about to pull out, she wrapped her legs around me, forcing me to come inside her. I am okay with the ruling in this article if what happened to me qualifies as rape.

RempingJenny · 2013-04-26T05:12:25+00:00

If the consent is fraudulently obtained, yes.

This is neither difficult to understand nor surprising.

Jack92783 · 2013-04-26T19:47:06+00:00

The name "Sharon Irons" has never been mentioned on /MensRights.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving/

Dare I hope that circumstances like these might fall under the British definition of "rape", as well?

Drop_ · 2013-04-25T16:34:48+00:00

Wow. I can't believe this sub sometimes. This is incredible and this ruling is a perversion of justice.

The idea that the judges can override prosecutorial discretion is just one step closer to "every accusation of rape has to go to full trial." for one thing, which is a clear feminist ideal but will no doubt lead to significantly more innocent men being convicted of rape.

2013-04-25T17:13:13+00:00

The Metro is absolute trash journalism, made for idiots and distributed for free.

I hope they're made cover some of the costs of the disposal of the grand scale littering they take part in, in European cities every day.

Xenoith · 2013-04-25T21:11:04+00:00

Depends if it's actual consent or forced consent, so yeah it could easily be rape. Just like if you torture someone they will admit anything.

baggyrabbit · 2013-04-25T13:52:57+00:00

Did you just take a screenshot of a photo?

usernameString · 2013-04-25T20:00:31+00:00

This is low point for this subreddit. It's r/mensrights, not r/rapesupporters. Anyone who read the full story already posted knows that the ruling was entirely reasonable, so OP decides to repost just the misleading headline of a tabloid, devoid of context, and he gets upvoted to the very top of the page by people who are taken in by it.

Downvoted and reported, although I don't know what the mods' stance is on this kind of thing.

davefromdallas · 2013-04-25T14:34:41+00:00

Who names their kid consent?

hierophage · 2013-04-25T23:08:59+00:00

So even the ludicrous notion of a written consent contract prior to sex is insufficient to protect oneself from claims of rape? This is absurd. If I bring a notarized form to court co-signed by my accuser spelling out our equal consent to sexual intercourse at the time and place of the alleged rape, it can still be rape. Unbelievable. This basically makes any sex act able to be called rape at the whim of the accuser. Absolutely unbelievable.

Neurotikitty · 2013-04-25T12:37:00+00:00

That's like your neighbor letting you borrow something and then charging you with theft.

Edit: I missed what the headline was referring to at first. This statement does not apply in this case. I was mistaken.

TheGDBatman · 2013-04-25T18:52:39+00:00

Everybody knows rape is determined by how slutty the girl is or looks....Sluts were made to take our cocks. It's their own dad's fault their daughter turned out to be a cock whore. Fathers be there for your daughter. Make sure she stays a virgin until she's married. Sons on the other hand better not stay a virgin in their 20's or 30's cause then they're a loser and you failed as a dad. He better get all the bitches. Or you're not a real Dad.

MountainCabin · 2013-04-25T13:42:36+00:00

Those bitches are always trying to get out of doing anal and giving blowjobs. Not specifically in that order.

Title	This wasn't in the rulebook
Author	ChunLiSBK
Upvotes	1580
Comments	320
Date	April 25, 2013 10:13 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1d2p3h/this-wasnt-in-the-rulebook/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-wasnt-in-the-rulebook.1611296 https://theredarchive.com/post/1611296

Comments