Swiss man who removed condom during sex no longer found guilty of rape - Sensationalist Headlines

[URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-remove-condom-sex-stealthing-no-conviction-rape-consent-switzerland-lausanne-a7729656.html"]Source.[/URL] [QUOTE]A man who was convicted of deliberately removing his condom without his partner’s knowledge during sex, has had his rape conviction changed to defilement by a Swiss court. The practice, known as “stealthing”, can transform a consensual act into a non-consensual one. In what was thought to be the first case of its kind in Switzerland, an appeal court in Lausanne upheld the 12-month suspended sentence handed to the man, who has not been named, at an earlier hearing. But they changed his original rape conviction, to one of defilement. The hearing was seen as test case for how the legal system can handle similar charges. The man had met his victim on the Tinder dating platform and the pair agreed to have sex at the woman’s home, according to Swiss broadcaster SRF.[/QUOTE] Really scummy thing to do, I can fully understand why they wanted to charge the guy with rape.

Takes a special kind of scumfuck to pull this shit. Asshole should've been tried for rape considering she didn't consent to it, but at least they upheld the sentence.

This is picking up traction in the US apparently, the act of "stealthing". It's fucking rape man.

What is "defilement"? Google searches have just given me this article.

While scummy, I'm not seeing how this is considered rape considering the definition of it is non consensual sexual penetration and not non consensual removal of condom.

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;52217886]While scummy, I'm not seeing how this is considered rape considering the definition of it is non consensual sexual penetration and not non consensual removal of condom.[/QUOTE] Doing something your partner does not consent to sexually, even if they deliberately tell you not to, is rape. Even though she thought she was having sex she consented to (sex with a condom), unbeknownst to her she was not having sex on those terms, making it rape.

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;52217886]While scummy, I'm not seeing how this is considered rape considering the definition of it is non consensual sexual penetration and not non consensual removal of condom.[/QUOTE] Condoms are there to prevent pregnancy and STD's i think you can guess why this isn't OK at all and should be called rape on your own

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;52217886]While scummy, I'm not seeing how this is considered rape considering the definition of it is non consensual sexual penetration and not non consensual removal of condom.[/QUOTE] If your partner consented to one thing, but you do a very different thing, then it sounds pretty rapey to me. Also, the legal definition of rape is different in every country.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52217899]Doing something your partner does not consent to sexually, even if they deliberately tell you not to, is rape. Even though she probably enjoyed it at the time, unbeknownst to her she was not having sex on the terms she consented to, making it rape.[/QUOTE] Ah I see.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52217911]If your partner consented to one thing, but you do a very different thing, then it sounds pretty rapey to me. Also, the legal definition of rape is different in every country.[/QUOTE] Off point, but in some countries rape is considered "Not consenting to every single thing the man tells you to do" and that amazes me in some really fucked up ways its sad that even clear cases can be just shut down like "lol naw its good man"

[QUOTE=kariko;52217780]What is "defilement"? Google searches have just given me this article.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19370083/201701010000/311.0.pdf[/url] [QUOTE='Art V, 191. '] sexual acts with a person incapable of proper judgment or resistance[/QUOTE]

I think it should be its own offence, calling it rape devaluates rape

i dunno, the other party wouldnt have consented without a condom and to take it off without their consent to me falls under rape

[QUOTE=WhyNott;52217940]I think it should be its own offence, calling it rape devaluates rape[/QUOTE] naw if she only consented to sex with a condom and pull the old switcheroo then you're having sex without consent. I wonder about condoms breaking In uni there was an urban legend about christians poking holes in condoms using needles. If someone had accidental unprotected sex from something like that would it still be classified as the same thing? Would the christian hole poker be the rapist rather than the guy doing a different kind of hole poking? IMO people who knowingly spread dangerous STDs should be tried for a similar thing with possible extra charges of bodily harm

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52217967]naw if she only consented to sex with a condom and pull the old switcheroo then you're having sex without consent. I wonder about condoms breaking In uni there was an urban legend about christians poking holes in condoms using needles. If someone had accidental unprotected sex from something like that would it still be classified as the same thing? Would the christian hole poker be the rapist rather than the guy doing a different kind of hole poking? [/QUOTE] My second ex (who turned from normal to seemingly batshit insane) did exactly that - try to sabotage the condoms and I caught her in the act, so that ain't no urban legend no more :v: I'd damn well call it rape, if not a whole lot more - had she become pregnant like she wanted, I'd have been a dad at 23 and on the hook for a helluva lot more. It could've fucking ruined me because she didn't want me to leave the UK, but there were no jobs (Hurray for economic crash of 2008-2009) and I couldn't/wouldn't want her to shift with me back to India because that'd be unfair on her.

[QUOTE=kariko;52217780]What is "defilement"? Google searches have just given me this article.[/QUOTE] Local news calls it "acte d'ordre sexuel sur une personne incapable de discernement ou de résistance" which I guess is legally not the same as rape? Anyway it didn't change his sentence which is what matters. (Also he's actually French apparently)

Sexual crime laws need to be specified a lot to make things like these, while not rape, explicitly illegal and punishable.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52217967]I wonder about condoms breaking In uni there was an urban legend about christians poking holes in condoms using needles. If someone had accidental unprotected sex from something like that would it still be classified as the same thing? Would the christian hole poker be the rapist rather than the guy doing a different kind of hole poking?[/QUOTE] broken condoms as long as no one is aware is an accident and shouldnt matter poking holes in condoms should be illegal but its not rape its sabotage and kinda like if someone replaced someones pills with placebos or some shit

I don't understand how you guys are saying this isn't rape. The guy did something that, had the girl been aware of, would've made her NOT consent to sex. The only reason it happened was because he deliberately hid his actions to prevent her from being aware of the situation and refusing to consent to it. Consent is given to a person that you WANT to have sex with. If halfway into it you no longer want to have sex with them and they continue anyways then that's rape.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;52218660]I don't understand how you guys are saying this isn't rape. The guy did something that, had the girl been aware of, would've made her NOT consent to sex. The only reason it happened was because he deliberately hid his actions to prevent her from being aware of the situation and refusing to consent to it. Consent is given to a person that you WANT to have sex with. If halfway into it you no longer want to have sex with them and they continue anyways then that's rape.[/QUOTE] I think everyone who isn't calling it rape still agrees that it's abhorrent and deserves punishment, but that the nature of the violation is quite different to situations where the victim doesn't or cannot consent to sex at all. I can see the reasoning—it's not a violent act or one where the victim is not in the right state to be able to consent to the act of sex. It is however subversive, deceptive, and damaging, so I can see WhyNott's point of view of putting it in a different but equally serious category.

I think putting this 'stealthing' thing in the same category as rape is sort of trivializing what is more commonly understood as such. It is by all means a terrible and dangerous thing to do and should be punished severely but I'm all for calling it something else, especially when it comes to legal language because that carries definite implications for actual court cases. The physical and psychological trauma of violently sodomizing another person by brutally forcing yourself on them is something so extremely vile and downright evil, it should stay in a league of its own among the most hateful and disgusting crimes imaginable. And I do not mean to trivialize doing anything during sex that you know full well, your partner would strongly object to, secretly or else, either. Especially removing a condom is just all kinds of wrong and a severe punishment to get people off the idea that it's something tame because their partner might not even know would be a good thing but doing so only takes a selfish douchebag with no consideration for the safety of others in favor of their own petty pleasure. To commit forceful, violent rape takes a true monster and often condemns the victim to a fate worse than death. Although, admittedly, I am, through personal experience, very biased on this issue and I honestly couldn't say if that makes my opinion more or less qualified myself so make of this post what you will

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;52217886]While scummy, I'm not seeing how this is considered rape considering the definition of it is non consensual sexual penetration and not non consensual removal of condom.[/QUOTE] I can see why. Looking at it plainly, she consented to one thing, and he did another thing, which she didn't consent to.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52217899]Doing something your partner does not consent to sexually, even if they deliberately tell you not to, is rape. Even though she probably enjoyed it at the time, unbeknownst to her she was not having sex on the terms she consented to, making it rape.[/QUOTE] So I noticed this has a larger amount of dumbs compared to similar posts I figured my language might be vague and I wanted to clarify that I'm not saying she 'enjoyed being raped', rather that she thought she was having sex she consented to when she wasn't just wanted to make sure if you think I'm dumb it's for the right reasons

While I [I]want[/I] him to face the rape charge, in all honesty he [I]shouldn't[/I]. Most countries have a very, very strict definition of rape. If it falls outside of that definition, it's not rape in the eyes of the law.

Literally a dick move.

[QUOTE=Little Green;52218759]I think everyone who isn't calling it rape still agrees that it's abhorrent and deserves punishment, but that the nature of the violation is quite different to situations where the victim doesn't or cannot consent to sex at all. I can see the reasoning—it's not a violent act or one where the victim is not in the right state to be able to consent to the act of sex. It is however subversive, deceptive, and damaging, so I can see WhyNott's point of view of putting it in a different but equally serious category.[/QUOTE] I can understand wanting to make a distinction but I don't think I'm seeing the [i]point[/i] of doing so. Statutory rape occurs under vastly different circumstances than rape involving violence but it's still two sides of the same coin. I don't think considering stealthing to be rape would be trivializing the other ways rape is committed, I think it's just as abhorrent. Brutalizing a stranger is terrible, but befriending a stranger and earning their trust just to rape them and then pretend like nothing happened? That's pretty fucked up too.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;52220068]I can understand wanting to make a distinction but I don't think I'm seeing the [i]point[/i] of doing so. Statutory rape occurs under vastly different circumstances than rape involving violence but it's still two sides of the same coin. I don't think considering stealthing to be rape would be trivializing the other ways rape is committed, I think it's just as abhorrent. Brutalizing a stranger is terrible, but befriending a stranger and earning their trust just to rape them and then pretend like nothing happened? That's pretty fucked up too.[/QUOTE] If anything, sounds like its own subcategory would be the most appropriate thing. Consent Fraud Rape? Something to disconnect it from the violent perception of the word rape on its own, while still recognising it as something that is by definition rape, compounded with what is basically fraud.

Should a woman lying about being on the pill be tried for rape as well?

Rape itself was in a very similar case actually. It used to not really be a defined term and most "rapes" were just prosecuted as assaults at best. Including something like this under rape makes it a pretty broad term when it probably shouldn't be. I'm not a lawyer so this is probably dumb but I'd create a few types of "sexual deception," e.g. lying about stds, stealthing, potentially even lying about the pill/etc, and so-on..

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223108]Should a woman lying about being on the pill be tried for rape as well?[/QUOTE] I'd say so.