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

[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 you want to be "but the dictionary says," and base solely on that definition alone, the sure. But that's not really what matters. "Rape" is just to mean "non-consensual sexual interaction." You can be nit-picky and call it "assault," or whatever, but that nit-pickiness has an actual affect in law where the guy would be charged more leniently because it's "just sexual assault, not full-on rape." She consented to sexual penetration under the condition of him wearing a condom. He removed the condom, and then continued to have sex with her. She did not consent to sex without a condom. Consent is [I]absolutely[/I] a "terms and conditions apply" scenario. [editline]13th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223108]Should a woman lying about being on the pill be tried for rape as well?[/QUOTE] I hate this question, mainly because I just can't answer it properly. Lying about birth control pills is different from lying about a condom, [I]in the sense[/I] that it's having sex with an actual condom there. Though honestly, now as I type that out, it sounds really silly; I honestly don't know how to put this part in words. Bottom line, though, is while I wouldn't use the word "rape," I'd still call for her to be punished as if she had raped someone: harshly (let me be optimistic), and labeled as a sexual predator.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52223352] But that's not really what matters. "Rape" is just to mean "non-consensual sexual interaction." You can be nit-picky and call it "assault," or whatever, but that nit-pickiness has an actual affect in law where the guy would be charged more leniently because it's "just sexual assault, not full-on rape."[/QUOTE] I don't think that pulling off a condom halfway through sex should carry the same punishment as the crime committed when you hold somebody at knifepoint and effectively torture them by forcibly having sex.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52223117]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] I'd argue it's a pretty fucking heinous crime indeed, but you do make a good point that this could potentially trivialise rape to a degree - perhaps it would make more sense to categorise it as a sexual crime with differing degrees and factors involved. It's obvious that someone who attacked and forced themself on someone should most certainly be viewed in a harsher light than someone who lied about who they are. Still needs to be dealt with accordingly though.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52223352]I hate this question, mainly because I just can't answer it properly. Lying about birth control pills is different from lying about a condom, [I]in the sense[/I] that it's having sex with an actual condom there. Though honestly, now as I type that out, it sounds really silly; I honestly don't know how to put this part in words. Bottom line, though, is while I wouldn't use the word "rape," I'd still call for her to be punished as if she had raped someone: harshly (let me be optimistic), and labeled as a sexual predator.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but why the completely arbitrary distinction between a pill and a condom? Let's summarize the situation: [QUOTE=LegndNikko;52223352]He consented to sexual intercourse under the condition of her taking the pill. She didn't take it, and then had sex with him regardless. He did not consent to sex without her being on the pill. Consent is [I]absolutely[/I] a "terms and conditions apply" scenario.[/QUOTE] If you're gonna base your definition of rape on a "terms and condition apply" model, why do you start nitpicking which terms and conditions actually apply? This just reeks of double standard.

I'd count lying about the pill knowingly to be rape. Shit goes both ways man. It's not right.

What ever happened to rape being this violent, severely traumatizing thing? Let's not forget about that young "child rapist" who was merely deceived by a lying teen.

It can absolutely be traumatizing if you lie about protection. Unwanted pregnancies can lead to abortion or being forced to give birth/take care of a child that you never wanted in the first place. It can ruin lives just as violet sexual assault and rape can.

How about this then: Should someone be tried for rape if they touched the other person's feet during sex when the other person has forbidden it? I mean they did something that the other person did not consent to during sex. What if someone tricked another person into thinking they are single while they were actually married and that other person wouldn't have had sex with them if they knew? What I'm saying is - this is pushing the definition of rape too far in my opinion. Now I"m not saying this is okay or that it shouldn't be illegal but I wouldn't call this 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] Its consent gained based on false pretenses.

[QUOTE=phygon;52223361]I don't think that pulling off a condom halfway through sex should carry the same punishment as the crime committed when you hold somebody at knifepoint and effectively torture them by forcibly having sex.[/QUOTE] That's the "image" that people put of "rape" in their head, not realizing that rape isn't even that, most of the time. Most of the time, it's slow, quiet abuse of someone a victim knew. The "knifepoint" thing is rape taken to eleven, with threat of assault added on top of it. Taking a condom off in the middle of sex brings a whole bunch of worries into play, and like I said, is a form of sex that obviously wasn't consented to. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52223472]I'm sorry, but why the completely arbitrary distinction between a pill and a condom? Let's summarize the situation: If you're gonna base your definition of rape on a "terms and condition apply" model, why do you start nitpicking which terms and conditions actually apply? This just reeks of double standard.[/QUOTE] Because it's not arbitrary, and the difference definitely needs to be addressed to a point, for sake of consideration? And excuse you? What "double standards" are you grasping at? I'm not nitpicking any "terms and conditions." When you consent to having sex with someone, that doesn't give them reign to slip condom off and think it's still consensual.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52226042]That's the "image" that people put of "rape" in their head, not realizing that rape isn't even that, most of the time. Most of the time, it's slow, quiet abuse of someone a victim knew. The "knifepoint" thing is rape taken to eleven, with threat of assault added on top of it. [/QUOTE] I know what rape is, but rape punishments were designed around that being one of the things considered rape. To be honest, being raped by a family member is probably even more traumatizing than someone pulling out a knife on you, but I didn't really feel like attempting to explain why that is worse than what's happening in the article because it's not really something I'd like to think about.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223738]How about this then: Should someone be tried for rape if they touched the other person's feet during sex when the other person has forbidden it? I mean they did something that the other person did not consent to during sex. What if someone tricked another person into thinking they are single while they were actually married and that other person wouldn't have had sex with them if they knew? What I'm saying is - this is pushing the definition of rape too far in my opinion. Now I"m not saying this is okay or that it shouldn't be illegal but I wouldn't call this rape.[/QUOTE] it's really fucking simple your partner consented to protected sex. they didn't consent to unprotected sex. you no longer have their consent. if they weren't lied to, they likely would not have given it in the first place. if they had known you ditched the condom during sex, they would have taken back their consent. if you want to ditch the condom, ask. if they say it's fine, you're good. if you deceive them, it's rape. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] here's an idea: don't deceive a sex partner and you won't get done with rape. "stealthing" is malicious as hell.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52226060]it's really fucking simple your partner consented to protected sex. they didn't consent to unprotected sex. you no longer have their consent. if they weren't lied to, they likely would not have given it in the first place. if they had known you ditched the condom during sex, they would have taken back their consent. if you want to ditch the condom, ask. if they say it's fine, you're good. if you deceive them, it's rape. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] here's an idea: don't deceive a sex partner and you won't get done with rape. "stealthing" is malicious as hell.[/QUOTE] Ya, like I don't even get why it is up for debate honestly. What is it with this site and attracting users that hold unbelievable trash opinions.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52226060]it's really fucking simple your partner consented to protected sex. they didn't consent to unprotected sex. you no longer have their consent. if they weren't lied to, they likely would not have given it in the first place. if they had known you ditched the condom during sex, they would have taken back their consent. if you want to ditch the condom, ask. if they say it's fine, you're good. if you deceive them, it's rape. [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] here's an idea: don't deceive a sex partner and you won't get done with rape. "stealthing" is malicious as hell.[/QUOTE] Here's an idea, both my [I]purposefully ridiculous[/I] examples fit your description of rape. Had the person known the other one is married they would not have had sex with them. They were deceived so according to your logic they were raped. Again you are setting up a rule that makes the definition of rape way too broad. It's really fucking simple, you have to explain where the line is and why my examples should not be considered rape. And thanks for informing me that this is malicious. Gee I didn't know... [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;52226099]Ya, like I don't even get why it is up for debate honestly. What is it with this site and attracting users that hold unbelievable trash opinions.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about me? What the fuck do you think my opinion on this is? I think this is a really terrible thing to do and I'm fine with punishing it equally to rape but I just wouldn't call this rape. And the Swiss justice system holds the same unbelievably trash opinion.

[QUOTE=Talvy;52223570]What ever happened to rape being this violent, severely traumatizing thing? Let's not forget about that young "child rapist" who was merely deceived by a lying teen.[/QUOTE] So wait, if rape is violent, does that mean slipping a drug into someone's drink then having sex with them while they're unconscious is not rape?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223738]How about this then: Should someone be tried for rape if they touched the other person's feet during sex when the other person has forbidden it? I mean they did something that the other person did not consent to during sex.[/QUOTE] Not really since rape implies penetration. [QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223738] What if someone tricked another person into thinking they are single while they were actually married and that other person wouldn't have had sex with them if they knew?[/QUOTE] That's what's usually known as 'being a dick' but isn't illegal. Doesn't stop you from telling their spouse

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52226042]Because it's not arbitrary, and the difference definitely needs to be addressed to a point, for sake of consideration?[/quote] If it's not an arbitrary distinction, then perhaps you could actually justify why you treat the two things as a different type of crime? Why would it not be rape? What's wrong exactly with the reformulation of your post I made? [quote]And excuse you? What "double standards" are you grasping at? I'm not nitpicking any "terms and conditions."[/quote] When you consider the "terms and conditions" of wearing a condom to be a valid reason to consider doing otherwise rape, but not the "terms and conditions" of taking the pill, you [I]are[/I] nitpicking the terms and conditions that apply. [Quote]When you consent to having sex with someone, that doesn't give them reign to slip condom off and think it's still consensual.[/QUOTE] And what the fuck? Literally where have I fucking said otherwise?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52226117]Here's an idea, both my [I]purposefully ridiculous[/I] examples fit your description of rape. Had the person known the other one is married they would not have had sex with them. They were deceived so according to your logic they were raped. Again you are setting up a rule that makes the definition of rape way too broad. It's really fucking simple, you have to explain where the line is and why my examples should not be considered rape. And thanks for informing me that this is malicious. Gee I didn't know... [editline]14th May 2017[/editline] Are you talking about me? What the fuck do you think my opinion on this is? I think this is a really terrible thing to do and I'm fine with punishing it equally to rape but I just wouldn't call this rape. And the Swiss justice system holds the same unbelievably trash opinion.[/QUOTE] risk of pregnancy or sti or actually getting either is physical and mental trauma and can be permanent. sleeping with a married person is in absolutely no way even close to the same. that's an insane comparison. it's a lie but it's not even close to being as fucked

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223738]How about this then: Should someone be tried for rape if they touched the other person's feet during sex when the other person has forbidden it? I mean they did something that the other person did not consent to during sex. What if someone tricked another person into thinking they are single while they were actually married and that other person wouldn't have had sex with them if they knew? What I'm saying is - this is pushing the definition of rape too far in my opinion. Now I"m not saying this is okay or that it shouldn't be illegal but I wouldn't call this rape.[/QUOTE] I know what you're getting at, but it's not like the law doesn't have room for common sense.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52223108]Should a woman lying about being on the pill be tried for rape as well?[/QUOTE] Yes. Well, or whatever category this crime would be in.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52226642]risk of pregnancy or sti or actually getting either is physical and mental trauma and can be permanent. sleeping with a married person is in absolutely no way even close to the same. that's an insane comparison. it's a lie but it's not even close to being as fucked[/QUOTE] I am not even comparing this on the grounds of how "fucked up" those things are. You can't make a law saying "if someone does something really fucked up to another person and it involves sex it's rape". I am comparing this on the definition you need to set up to consider "stealthing" and lying about the pill rape. And I am saying that if you make a rule that "if someone does something during sex without the knowledge of the other person and that other person would have taken back their consent had they knew (like removing the condom) it's rape" and/or "if you lie about something and have sex while the other person would have not given their consent had they knew the truth (like lying about the pill) is rape" then lots of minuscule shit will also be involved in this definition of rape. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52226969]I know what you're getting at, but it's not like the law doesn't have room for common sense.[/QUOTE] Right, and the Swiss justice system and I both think that the common sense is to punish stealthing as harshly as rape but do not call it rape.