Is ignorance turning men into sex offenders?

Imnotmrabut · 2017-04-24T19:56:36+00:00

TROLLING ALERT

There is a Concerted Attempt to Launch Stealthing as an anti male issue.

Wakipedia pages have been created in the last 48 hours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealthing

Be careful what you say as it will be used on twitter against us all!

Also note that this is an issue with claims made against Julian Assange and seems to be linked to a developing campaign to have him arrested and tried.

omegaphallic · 2017-04-25T15:12:16+00:00

I don't support stealthing, but I also don't support the double standard , where is this woman demanding we teach women that lying about being on the pill is sexual assault?

EsraYmssik · 2017-04-24T18:39:13+00:00

In terms of consent, she's consented to sex WITH condom. So, technically, yes.

OTOH If this 'stealthing' thing is for real, the problem is not to teach young men about consent.

Teach them about STDs. If I've just picked up a girl in a club and she's OK to go bareback, the absolute LAST thing I am going to do with her is go bareback.

It's the old joke that if you fuck a girl bareback, you're fucking everybody else she's fucked.

OTGH Teach young men about fucking child support! To be honest I seriously doubt this is for real. Like any guy is going to risk being put on the hook to support some girl he may have only met once for the next 18 years.

scotiej · 2017-04-24T18:09:22+00:00

For one thing, slipping off a condom during sex doesn't make it a sexual assault. It just means he's an ass with little thought to consequences.

If someone (not just guys) keeps trying to push something during sex that you don't want, put a stop to it. I've heard stories from friends about women that tried and occasionally succeeded at this very thing.

thrway_1000 · 2017-04-24T21:17:24+00:00

https://archive.is/5Vwki

Imnotmrabut · 2017-04-26T17:44:18+00:00

“carceral feminism”
: the commitment of abolitionist feminist activists to a law and order agenda and, as Marie Gottschalk has similarly described within the context of the u.s. antirape and battered women’s movements, a drift from the welfare state to the carceral state as the enforcement apparatus for feminist goals.
Bernstein, Elizabeth. *"The sexual politics of the “New Abolitionism”."* differences 18.3 (2007): 128-151.
Propoganda Implications
Advocacy Research and Moral Panic

Imnotmrabut · 2017-04-26T18:28:59+00:00

What is Stealthing?
Stealthing is a form of sneakily compromising, tampering with or removing a condom
Stealthing can involve someone strategically damaging a condom before intercourse, or the stealthy removal of the condom during intercourse. In the practice of condom stealthing, either party can be the deceptive one.
The receiving partner can damage the condom, either by poking holes in it, or suggesting to use a non-condom safe lubricant, like oil. On the other hand, the non-receptive partner can take the condom off during coitus. This condom removal technique is most common during doggy style, during which it is harder to see what is going on behind the receiving partner (unless mirrors are present).
Stealthing can occur between partners of any sexual preference, but is most commonly associated with women who are trying to become pregnant by poking holes in a condom, as in the banned clothing ad from Disigual ...., or by HIV positive people in the POZ scene who find gratification through the transmission of the virus. However, anyone can stealth– so even people in long term, monogamous and STD-free relationships should beware.
Source: *"What is Stealthing", CondomDepot.com,* *May 13, 2014*
Archive Copy 1, Archive Copy 2, Archive Copy 3
Propoganda Implications
Advocacy Research and Moral Panic

RebeccaDeW · 2017-04-24T15:34:02+00:00

Puts tin hat on

I'd be genuinely interested to hear what people think about this. Unless posting here isn't legit, in which case feel free to delete it.

Thanks!

Title	Is ignorance turning men into sex offenders?
Author	RebeccaDeW
Upvotes	0
Comments	86
Date	April 24, 2017 3:33 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/679rvh/is_ignorance_turning_men_into_sex_offenders/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-ignorance-turning-men-into-sex-offenders.924434 https://theredarchive.com/post/924434

'Conditional' Consent - Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 3: Consent - Crown Prosecution Service
Section 74 has recently been considered by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a series of cases where ostensible consent in relation to sexual offences was considered not to be true consent, either because a condition upon which consent was given was not complied with or because of a material deception (other than one which falls within section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 [SOA]). The resultant judgments identified three sets of circumstances in which consent to sexual activity might be vitiated where the condition was breached.
In Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin), an extradition case, the President of the Queens Bench Division considered the situation in which Mr Assange knew that AA would only consent to sexual intercourse if he used a condom. Rejecting the view that the conclusive presumption in section 76 of the SOA would apply in these circumstances the President concluded that the "issue of materiality ...can be determined under section 74 rather than section 76".
On the specific facts the President said: "It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003...."
In R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), the High Court examined an application for judicial review of the refusal of the DPP to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the complainant by her former partner. "Choice" and the "freedom" to make any particular choice must, the Court said, be approached in "a broad commonsense way".
Against what the Court described as the "essential background" of the complainant's partner's "sexual dominance" and the complainant's "unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands", the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant*, the result, the Court stated was:
"She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape".
The third case, Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051, differs from those referred to above. Unlike Assange and F, both of which turned on an express condition, McNally was concerned with the material deception of the victim by the Appellant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed McNally's appeal against her conviction on six counts of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the SOA and allowed her appeal against sentence. The "undeniably unusual" facts considered by the Court involved the relationship between two girls which, over 3 years, developed from an internet relationship to an "exclusive romantic relationship" that involved their meeting and engaging in sexual activity. From the start McNally presented as a boy, a deception she maintained throughout the relationship. Examining the nature of "choice" and "freedom", the Court determined that "deception as to gender can vitiate consent".
The Courts reasoning was as follows: "Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."
Demonstrating that the circumstances in which consent may be vitiated are not limitless, the Court explained: "In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."
Referral to the PLA
In the light of the developing concept of conditional consent and the absence of a clear authority as to how far the concept extends, all proposed decisions in conditional consent cases whether to charge or not - must be referred to the PLA for authorisation.
This is in order to allow the PLA to oversee charging decisions being made in these cases and to provide advice in appropriate cases. Accordingly, the PLA must be notified prior to any decision being communicated to the police or any other party.
For the avoidance of doubt, details of all cases referred by the police which are not thought to pass the Full Code Test must also be sent to the PLA (before the decision is communicated), as well as those where it is intended to charge.
For these purposes conditional consent refers to allegations of sexual offences in which it is said that ostensible consent was not true consent, either because of a material deception (other than one which falls within section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) or because a condition on which consent was given was not complied with.

Comments

TROLLING ALERT