Post: #26

Guy should be charged but not with rape but that's only if it was explicitly agreed upon to fucking only with a condom. If there was no agreement then no charge.

It's really not hard to get a girl to agree to taking the condom off midfuck. All you have to say is "I'm taking the condom off." Then just stick it back in there and I'm sure she would have gone along with it. Even if she stops you, finish off with a blow job.

Post: #27

By extension, if I have sex with a woman and she removes her make up before going to sleep, and I see she is not that attractive in reality,
then it is obvious rape, as I wouldn't have agreed to sex if I would have seen her how she really looks

Post: #28

Good luck with removing a condom having sex with a street prostitute and discussing the legal matters with her pimp.

Also, there is nothing new about it, there was a similar case in Belgium in 2005, a member of the European Parliament was charged with rape by a prostitute after she claimed to be forced to sex without condom.
Found not guilty in 2008.

Post: #29

(01-18-2017 04:53 AM)Troller Wrote:  ...
The definition of rape is having sex without consent. Not the way the sex is done for fuck sake.

Incorrect. As annoying as it might be at the time, consent can be revoked. "I don't want to anymore". Boom. The end. A girl gives you the green light to pussyfuck with a condom doesn't mean that you can assume that you're allowed to go to town raw on the mouth and her ass. Sorry, mate. It's just a fact.

Quote:A condom is just an accessory or a lateral subject.

Incorrect. Both legally and morally. I wouldn't want to be a father to some slut's bastard kid because she decided that "a condom is just an accessory or a lateral subject".

Quote:They are broadening the concept of rape to idiotic levels. Let´s say you pretend to be rich. The girl then founds out your poor. She wouldn´t have given consent. Was she raped? Of course not. If you say your a pilot. Fuck a girl and afterwards she founds out your not. It´s rape? In both cases she gave consent based in false conditions. You say a girl you love her. Than dumps her. All the sex you had was based in a false premise. It´s rape.

You're getting emotional. She would have to prove in court that she agreed to sleep with you only if you were a pilot. Did she say "we can have sex, but only if you're a pilot"? No? No case. Did she say "we can have sex, but only with a condom" and you took it off half way? Yes? She has a case.

Quote:At best. And this is already an exaggeration to which I don´t agree but could concede. The person taking off the condom could be responsible for potential damages. As moronic as it sounds. But never, ever criminal penalties.
If the person has aids or other serious disease and knew about it or should know based on sexual behaviour. It´s still not rape. But a felony. A crime. Which already exists in most codes. There´s no need to create a new crime.

Arguable. But the moral and legal premise is that consent was conditional and the contract was broken. Ergo rape. Don't like it? Don't raw dog bitches "by surprise".

Quote:The only difference are aids and the ability to get pregnant. And I believe it´s about not getting pregnant. State has no say into human relations. No say. Specially intimate.

Where you draw that idea from is beyond me. There are plenty of good examples of where the laws are stupid (buyers remorse rape for example). Going ape over this particular case is totally missing the mark.

Post: #30

(01-18-2017 06:04 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 04:53 AM)Troller Wrote:  ...
The definition of rape is having sex without consent. Not the way the sex is done for fuck sake.

Incorrect. As annoying as it might be at the time, consent can be revoked. "I don't want to anymore". Boom. The end. A girl gives you the green light to pussyfuck with a condom doesn't mean that you can assume that you're allowed to go to town raw on the mouth and her ass. Sorry, mate. It's just a fact.

Quote:A condom is just an accessory or a lateral subject.

Incorrect. Both legally and morally. I wouldn't want to be a father to some slut's bastard kid because she decided that "a condom is just an accessory or a lateral subject".

Quote:They are broadening the concept of rape to idiotic levels. Let´s say you pretend to be rich. The girl then founds out your poor. She wouldn´t have given consent. Was she raped? Of course not. If you say your a pilot. Fuck a girl and afterwards she founds out your not. It´s rape? In both cases she gave consent based in false conditions. You say a girl you love her. Than dumps her. All the sex you had was based in a false premise. It´s rape.

You're getting emotional. She would have to prove in court that she agreed to sleep with you only if you were a pilot. Did she say "we can have sex, but only if you're a pilot"? No? No case. Did she say "we can have sex, but only with a condom" and you took it off half way? Yes? She has a case.

Quote:At best. And this is already an exaggeration to which I don´t agree but could concede. The person taking off the condom could be responsible for potential damages. As moronic as it sounds. But never, ever criminal penalties.
If the person has aids or other serious disease and knew about it or should know based on sexual behaviour. It´s still not rape. But a felony. A crime. Which already exists in most codes. There´s no need to create a new crime.

Arguable. But the moral and legal premise is that consent was conditional and the contract was broken. Ergo rape. Don't like it? Don't raw dog bitches "by surprise".

Quote:The only difference are aids and the ability to get pregnant. And I believe it´s about not getting pregnant. State has no say into human relations. No say. Specially intimate.

Where you draw that idea from is beyond me. There are plenty of good examples of where the laws are stupid (buyers remorse rape for example). Going ape over this particular case is totally missing the mark.

If a woman tells you she´s taking birth control pills and isn´t are you raped if you have sex with her?

Post: #31

(01-18-2017 06:09 AM)Troller Wrote:  ....
If a woman tells you she´s taking birth control pills and isn´t are you raped if you have sex with her?

Weak analogy. It assumes that the only issue is pregnancy, which could easily be avoided with a morning after pill.

There's a whole other way of looking at this. By this precedent a guy could have charges pressed against a woman who sabotaged his jimmy hats. If successful he could sue her for the return of prospective child support payments as losses resulting due to the commission of a crime against him by the offending bitch.

Post: #32

Your words: "This was chalked up as rape because consent was given under terms (taking birth control) and when those terms were deliberately broken (she was not taking birth controls) then consent was presumed to be revoked."

This is a banalization of the term rape and what should be considered a crime. Going down this path real rapes might one day not be prosecuted because judges will consider rapes a joke. Criminal law has several requisites. Which you probably know.

In reality it´s extremely perverse to woman who were forced to have sex against their will. They probably look at this and feel disgusted to be put on the same level of a slut who had buyers remorse. Buyers remorse is not a crime BTW.

Nothing more than a vengeance of a slut who was probably dumped. It´s not about aids or pregnancy. Just a bitch who couldn´t take she was played. A ridiculous instrumentalization of state power.

Of course the establishment saw here an opening to create another form of population control and reinforce the use of condoms. At the same time they tell us we should take migrants because of lack of birth. They reinforce the use of condoms.

The real question here is how far can the government/state regulate and interfere into private matters. Because it´s a private matter. Society has no business if a man wears a condom or not while he´s fucking a woman. The only issue is if there´s violence. Or considerable damage.

Don´t have any dog here. Since I always fucked bitches without condom. One german was afraid to get pregnant. She did anal.

Post: #33

(01-18-2017 07:51 AM)Troller Wrote:  Your words: "This was chalked up as rape because consent was given under terms (taking birth control) and when those terms were deliberately broken (she was not taking birth controls) then consent was presumed to be revoked."

This is a banalization of the term rape and what should be considered a crime. Going down this path real rapes might one day not be prosecuted because judges will consider rapes a joke. Criminal law has several requisites. Which you probably know.

Debate.

Quote:In reality it´s extremely perverse to woman who were forced to have sex against their will. They probably look at this and feel disgusted to be put on the same level of a slut who had buyers remorse. Buyers remorse is not a crime BTW.

Nothing more than a vengeance of a slut who was probably dumped. It´s not about aids or pregnancy. Just a bitch who couldn´t take she was played. A ridiculous instrumentalization of state power.

Of course the establishment saw here an opening to create another form of population control and reinforce the use of condoms. At the same time they tell us we should take migrants because of lack of birth. They reinforce the use of condoms.

The real question here is how far can the government/state regulate and interfere into private matters. Because it´s a private matter. Society has no business if a man wears a condom or not while he´s fucking a woman. The only issue is if there´s violence. Or considerable damage.

Emotion.

There's lots of progressive insanity occasioning political imprisonment to be angry about in our societies.

This? Not even close.

Post: #34

I had a wingman who did this the first time he fucked a certain girl and got her pregnant. A guy into game who hated using condoms, just like a lot of guys on RVF. She noticed midway through and stopped him but it was too late. He is really fucking lucky that she decided to get an abortion because she comes from a super strict traditional family, or else he'd be on the hook for 18 years and have a fucking kid when he's just started his career. And now he'll have to live knowing that a life that would have been his child got terminated because of his idiocy. Don't do it. It is immoral, dishonourable, scumbag behaviour and it can all too easily bite you in the ass.

Post: #35

(01-18-2017 05:31 AM)realologist Wrote:  Guy should be charged but not with rape but that's only if it was explicitly agreed upon to fucking only with a condom. If there was no agreement then no charge.

It's really not hard to get a girl to agree to taking the condom off midfuck. All you have to say is "I'm taking the condom off."

Out of interest, has any single member of this forum ever engaged in this verbal sex agreement stuff that I've heard coming out of America? How does it work, like do you say "The insertion of my penis, erect and sheathed in polyurethane, is pending. Do I have affirmative consent to proceed?". Do you say it in the voice of Sheldon Cooper, or like a robot man or something?

Buy that ticket bro. Just walk to your nearest airport and get your breath of fresh air. That language you think is normal: It's a modern American product and you don't realize how fucked up it sounds to the rest of us.

I am self-forbidden from participating in any discussion that could be considered political. So speaking from a purely scientific perspective (and biting my tongue severely on everything else), do the members siding with the court claim that a woman cannot feel the difference between a raw dick and a plastic dick?

Man when I read this stuff I get the weirdest ideas. Like a country where men have to use an automatic plunge-counter, each plunge being time stamped, and the woman has to sign off of on each plunge afterwards. Or where she kind of looks at you with a suspicious face the whole time you're banging her, watching for a false move.


Might have to extend that abstention to reading about this stuff too. Holy shit we live in a weird world.

Post: #36

I can't believe somebody took this bizarrely relevant clip from this ancient movie and dumped it in Youtube, but here it is. I was almost certain I had no chance of finding it.

Post: #37

(01-18-2017 09:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I can't believe somebody took this bizarrely relevant clip from this ancient movie and dumped it in Youtube, but here it is. I was almost certain I had no chance of finding it.

"The Oral Clause seems a little.. sticky."

Post: #38

(01-18-2017 09:35 AM)Sam Malone Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 09:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I can't believe somebody took this bizarrely relevant clip from this ancient movie and dumped it in Youtube, but here it is. I was almost certain I had no chance of finding it.

"The Oral Clause seems a little.. sticky."

The scene cracked me up along with that young Lawrence Fishbourne.

Take a look at the plot from Wikipedia:

Quote:In the year 2017, the United States has fragmented into postapocalyptic wastelands and limited civilized areas. One of the effects of the economic crisis is a decline in manufacturing, and heavy emphasis on recycling aging 20th-century mechanical equipment. Society has become increasingly bureaucratic and hypersexualized, with the declining number of human sexual encounters requiring contracts[consent] drawn up by lawyers prior to sexual activity. At the same time, robotic technology has made tremendous developments, and female androids (or "gynoids") are used as substitutes for wives.

Egad, it's strangely prophetic.

Post: #39

I originally picked up my copy for two bucks at a dime store type location. The movie was rubbish but I can't help myself when it comes to films set in the dark, dystopian future of 2008 (etc).

It's just too hilarious.

Post: #40

(01-17-2017 10:49 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

(01-17-2017 10:20 AM)dicknixon72 Wrote:  By extension, if I tell a woman I'll love her and marry her before having sex and don't end up doing that, did I rape her?

That's called seduction and whether it is a crime or not depends on the jurisdiction.

Even if it may still be on the books in some countries, I haven't heard of anyone being prosecuted for it.

Granted, it's an old example but the "Chairman of the Board" once received a charge of seduction. I will say if you're going to get arrested for anything, being criminally seductive does sound pretty badass.

   

Quote:In 1938, the singer Frank Sinatra was arrested twice for what the New York Times describes as "sex crimes." First, in late November, he was arrested on charges of seduction, and second, in late December, he was arrested on charges of adultery. Both of these charges were later dismissed.

The initial charge of seduction was likely the result of a girlfriend getting into a fight with Sinatra's then-fiancee, Nancy, and pressing charges. The woman who brought the initial seduction charges alleged that Sinatra had seduced her under promise of marriage, and the adultery charge was a less severe amendment to the original seduction charge.

Post: #41

(01-18-2017 08:17 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I originally picked up my copy for two bucks at a dime store type location. The movie was rubbish but I can't help myself when it comes to films set in the dark, dystopian future of 2008 (etc).

It's just too hilarious.

I just watched this last night with my girl.

Funnily enough, it's 2017 in the movie. Melanie Griffith was damn nice back then.

Post: #42

When did White-Knighting get popular on the RVF? This must be cleansed with fire.

Leonard, your arguments are terrible in this thread. So far you've only picked on the weaker arguments presented but have completely neglected the larger issues at hand.

Quote:As annoying as it might be at the time, consent can be revoked. "I don't want to anymore". Boom. The end. A girl gives you the green light to pussyfuck with a condom doesn't mean that you can assume that you're allowed to go to town raw on the mouth and her ass. Sorry, mate. It's just a fact.

The fact the law supports a woman to stop a man mid-fuck should is insane, as well as virtually unprovable in court. It's just one word against another (unless it's filmed). Asking a man to stop in mid-fuck under criminal liability is like asking a car to come to a complete stop at 60 MPH. No way to stop quickly. Most men aren't even capable of listening to commands mid-act.

Quote:Incorrect. Both legally and morally. I wouldn't want to be a father to some slut's bastard kid because she decided that "a condom is just an accessory or a lateral subject".

Too bad, the law says if a woman lies to you about being on the pill you're still paying for the kid for 18 years.

The law says if you don't stop mid-sex you could be guilty of rape.

The law says if you take off a condom mid-sex you've committed rape.

The law says a woman is can lie, but men are not allowed to lie.

Only a sucker would support these laws.

Lying about condom usage is no different than a woman lying about her age, unless there are damages.

Quote:You're getting emotional. She would have to prove in court that she agreed to sleep with you only if you were a pilot. Did she say "we can have sex, but only if you're a pilot"? No? No case. Did she say "we can have sex, but only with a condom" and you took it off half way? Yes? She has a case.

Completely ridiculous. So if a woman says she'll have sex with you if you buy her a drink, but then reneges after you buy her the drink, the man has a case?

This is not how contract law works in any country as far as I'm aware, and for good reason. No reason to destroy good laws by trying to set precedents with bad condom laws.

Quote:Arguable. But the moral and legal premise is that consent was conditional and the contract was broken. Ergo rape. Don't like it? Don't raw dog bitches "by surprise".

I've got a better idea. We're going to win elections and change the laws.

This is the expansion of the word rape into absurdity. At the rate we are going looking at a woman without her consent may become rape.