WykeTyke

When a condom is deliberately removed...

70 posts in this topic

Assuming a man has consent for safe sex, but then deliberately removes the condom unnoticed, does that make it rape?

IMHO, to me it seems obvious the consent was removed when the condom was.

The reason I ask, is because this is an issue in a case in the news recently, but seems to be overlooked for various other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - because there was consent to the act of sex, itself. It's the same if you don't tell your partner that you have a disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming a man has consent for safe sex, but then deliberately removes the condom unnoticed, does that make it rape?

IMHO, to me it seems obvious the consent was removed when the condom was.

The reason I ask, is because this is an issue in a case in the news recently, but seems to be overlooked for various other reasons.

He has taken the consent away for safe sex without a doubt, and has no right to do that. If it was done to me I would feel violated and it would feel like rape. no one has the right to do anything without consent.

Shelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the search function and ou wind a very helpful recent thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming a man has consent for safe sex, but then deliberately removes the condom unnoticed, does that make it rape?

IMHO, to me it seems obvious the consent was removed when the condom was.

The reason I ask, is because this is an issue in a case in the news recently, but seems to be overlooked for various other reasons.

I can see where you're coming from but no it wouldn't be rape, as consent can't have pre-conditions - if it was rape then this man would have been charged with that since presumably this woman gave her consent on the basis that he was HIV negative...which is very similar logic to yours. But he was only charged with GBH.

Similar questions have been posed before e.g. is it rape if you have sex with a WG and then don't pay up, or nick the money back after the booking etc. Same answer...no,rape is penetration without consent...and consent can't be conditional.

(although obviously if the condom is removed consent can be specifically withdrawn at that point and continuation by the man would THEN be rape)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming a man has consent for safe sex, but then deliberately removes the condom unnoticed, does that make it rape?

It's not a nice thing to do...but as Punter992005 says it's not rape.

She consented to "penetration", so it's not rape.

You can look at R v Linekar [1995] and section 1 SOA 2003.

If a woman consents to sex because the man says he's a multi-millionaire and will take her on holiday, buy her clothes and jewellery etc, when in reality he's pennyless then that's not rape.

If a woman consents to sex because the man says he's a premiership footballer, when in reality he stacks shelves at ASDA then that's not rape.

If a prostitute has sex with a customer because he says that he'll pay her afterwards, and he doesn't then that's not rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly different angle, but still relevant.

I have advised several girls not to leave condoms in the goody basket in the room whilst they go off to do whatever they do for 5 minutes. I've heard stories about guys that will stick pins through the condoms, not sure what they get out of it, but I can believe it happens. I'm sure that many girls experience the split condom situation occasionally, but just how accidental it is can sometimes be questioned. Did actually happen to me once, naturally I got tested asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rape is when you do not consent to sex :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a nice thing to do...but as Punter992005 says it's not rape.

She consented to "penetration", so it's not rape.

You can look at R v Linekar [1995] and section 1 SOA 2003.

If a woman consents to sex because the man says he's a multi-millionaire and will take her on holiday, buy her clothes and jewellery etc, when in reality he's pennyless then that's not rape.

If a woman consents to sex because the man says he's a premiership footballer, when in reality he stacks shelves at ASDA then that's not rape.

If a prostitute has sex with a customer because he says that he'll pay her afterwards, and he doesn't then that's not rape.

Are those real example cases or speculation ?

I'm not entirely convinced those are equivalent comparisons, because they are not directly related to the consented sex act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are those real example cases or speculation ?

I'm not entirely convinced those are equivalent comparisons, because they are not directly related to the consented sex act.

The non-payment case is real ( R v Linekar). The other two I made up to illustrate my point.

Perhaps another case would be a woman agreeing to OWO provided that the man did not cum in her mouth or on her hair. Clearly, if he did so that would not be rape, even though rape does include penetration of the mouth, because she consented to penetration.

The relevant sections are sections 1, 75 and 76 Sexual Offences Act 2003.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where you're coming from but no it wouldn't be rape, as consent can't have pre-conditions - if it was rape then this man would have been charged with that since presumably this woman gave her consent on the basis that he was HIV negative...which is very similar logic to yours. But he was only charged with GBH.

Similar questions have been posed before e.g. is it rape if you have sex with a WG and then don't pay up, or nick the money back after the booking etc. Same answer...no,rape is penetration without consent...and consent can't be conditional.

(although obviously if the condom is removed consent can be specifically withdrawn at that point and continuation by the man would THEN be rape)

Was he really charged with GBH? In legal terms I'm not sure how not using a condom constituted inflicting serious bodily harm or injury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was he really charged with GBH? In legal terms I'm not sure how not using a condom constituted inflicting serious bodily harm or injury?

In that case it was the reckless transmission of HIV - which comes within section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (commonly called causing GBH).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case it was the reckless transmission of HIV - which comes within section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (commonly called causing GBH).

Ah, right - I missed the bit about HIV when I first read your post....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be rape however I know a WG that this happened to when having anal sex and he removed the condom and then held her with him inside while he used her very roughly. After he had come she noticed the condom behind him and rushed off to try to assess the damage.

When she told me, as a mate, I wanted to knock his smarmy grin off with a baseball bat and I would suggest any punter that did do that does not worry about rape charges but does definitely increase his life insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK; seeing as this is a "what if" thread; would just like to take it one step further:

What about if before the sexual act the WG specifically states "I am happy to be penetrated whilst you are wearing the condom, however, should you deliberately remove the condom at any time please be aware that I no longer wish to be penetrated"

Is that still a conditional consent (and therefore not rape if the condom is deliberately removed and penetration takes place) or an advance notice to the man that the consent is withdrawn the moment he takes off the condom deliberately (thus causing different consequences)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where you're coming from but no it wouldn't be rape, as consent can't have pre-conditions -

QUOTE]

Of course consent has pre-conditions. The agreement that you are both free from sti, the agreement that you both free of hiv and if the lady has put a condom on your willy and you remove it deliberatley when she cannot see that then you have broken the consent.

People have been convicted of giving others hiv, if consent had no pre conditions the judges would have said, you shagged him/her so you took you chances when you consented.

I wouldnt go so far as to say it was rape though, in fact i really cant tell you what i would call it but it should be a crime.

Gross dereliction of the mutual consent....there you go, a good name i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask another What If? .... If you consent to vaginal sex and then the guy then does anal, is that rape ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask another What If? .... If you consent to vaginal sex and then the guy then does anal, is that rape ?

Um, wouldnt you notice???!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask another What If? .... If you consent to vaginal sex and then the guy then does anal, is that rape ?

Good question. Previously I would have said obviously yes, but give what Silverado has said about consent apparently not in the eyes of the law.

I always though consent could be withdrawn at any point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask another What If? .... If you consent to vaginal sex and then the guy then does anal, is that rape ?

I would think so, on the basis that the consent given is for vaginal penetration only and not anal penetration.

An example would be a young girl who is a virgin who is happy to give oral sex but wants to remain a virgin. If she consents to oral sex but a male penetrates her vagina without consent, then I have no doubt that would be rape within section 1 SOA 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a punter, it is the crux of the allegations against Julian Assange.

I didn't not want to colour the argument because I find a lot of people seem pre-disposed to one position or another, based on their position for or against his leaks, for or against a smear.

It has not been widely reported but the charges against him have been revived. Reportedly and I'm going to paraphrase. In the one case he had consensual sex with a condom with the women, at some point he removed the condom and continued and at some point later she noticed he was not longer safe and challenged him, he said it had split. She later discovered the condom was if fact actually intact. In the second case he had consensual safe sex with a condom on the night, but in the morning initiated unsafe sex but allegedly with clear knowledge that a condom was required. At some point both women spoke and realised that the lack of a condom was pattern of behaviour and raised the complaint.

Certainly very muddy and understandable complex legality.

To make matters more complicated, one of the women wrote an article on how to get revenge on a failed lover and one works for a radical left wing feminist organisation. It's unclear to me if these are is the same woman and which is which case.

About the only thing I'm certain about, is that it is not a CIA conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think so, on the basis that the consent given is for vaginal penetration only and not anal penetration.

An example would be a young girl who is a virgin who is happy to give oral sex but wants to remain a virgin. If she consents to oral sex but a male penetrates her vagina without consent, then I have no doubt that would be rape within section 1 SOA 2003.

Now I'm really confused.

What is the legal distinction between that pre-condition and pre-conditioned that a condom is used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I'm really confused.

What is the legal distinction between that pre-condition and pre-conditioned that a condom is used?

You can consent to penetration of the vagina.

You can consent to penetration of the anus.

You can consent to penetration of the mouth.

You can't consent conditionally to penetration. You either consent or you don't.

Consent to one form of penetration does not extend to another form of penetration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask another What If? .... If you consent to vaginal sex and then the guy then does anal, is that rape ?

You consent to sex. It's not unheard of (ahem) for men to try it on at some point i.e trying to slip it up the bum, but obviously you're going to notice and if you're not up for it you're going to tell him to stop - at which point he stops or yes he is a rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course consent has pre-conditions. The agreement that you are both free from sti, the agreement that you both free of hiv and if the lady has put a condom on your willy and you remove it deliberatley when she cannot see that then you have broken the consent.

People have been convicted of giving others hiv, if consent had no pre conditions the judges would have said, you shagged him/her so you took you chances when you consented.

I wouldnt go so far as to say it was rape though, in fact i really cant tell you what i would call it but it should be a crime.

Gross dereliction of the mutual consent....there you go, a good name i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now