When Cakester quits there is a war in Korea

[Mismatch]

Julian Asange is currently wanted on rape charges.

Only it wasnt rilly rape at all.... the sex part was all consentual. Only somewhere along the way he lost his condom.... And then it seems that under swedish law you're suddenly a rapist.

[Retlaw83]

That was the impression I got.

But if a woman consents to protected sex, then you have unprotected sex wit her, that's not what she consented to. The bigger issue is, if this guy views himself as some sort of paragon of truth, lying about wrapping it before he sticks it is awful hypocrisy.

[Megatron]

that is pretty much the plot to 'knocked up' iirc

i think its bueno enough although i havent personally could be bothered to trawl through a bunch of txt files about politicians calling each other names like UN version of dac lol so whatev all the backlash and cyberterrorism bullshit is bullshit im more surprised people arent getting mad about that aspect of it rather than what is in the leaks themselves, yknow, who gives a fuck if the prime minister of georgia has a big snake dick or if sadaam hussein is alive and shaved?

also they gave a lot more attention to all this than the video of us troops shooting unarmed civilians from a few weeks back :LOL: WHATEVer obama you post-modern jigaboo i have made u i can destroy u with my skull bong launch artillery strikes from the wtc into space and bomb the fuck outta teh world

[Frater Perdurabo]

That was the impression I got.

But if a woman consents to protected sex, then you have unprotected sex wit her, that's not what she consented to. The bigger issue is, if this guy views himself as some sort of paragon of truth, lying about wrapping it before he sticks it is awful hypocrisy.

First of all, at least under English law, that would not constitute rape. It probably would not constitute rape under any mildly advanced legal system.

On top of all of this, how does your suggestion make any sense at all?
"I thought that he had the johnny on when he rammed it inside me. Otherwise I would have consented. I was thus raped."

[Retlaw83]

It is, at the very least, a form of sexual abuse.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Incorrect again.

[Burning Oasis]

Ladies, ladies, calm down!
There's enough of me to go around.

[Dogmeatlives]

WHoa whoa! Retlaw, are you out your damn mind?! There is no abuse occuring there. He either forgot or he just didn't want to. Either way, the woman learns a valuable lesson. Look down and confirm protection before penetration occurs.

You can't get all up in someone's bedroom and try to legally explain every little aspect of the sexual process. If you did, every one in the world would be put away for assault at one point or another. I've been bitten, for cryin out loud!

[Retlaw83]

Okay. Then you and Frater can explain to me, on a moral and legal level, how performing a sexual act on someone you know doesn't want that act performed on them is acceptable.

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

Consensual nonconsent.

[Stalagmite]

Just staring at that picture is making photoshop install itself on my computer.

[Megatron]

Okay. Then you and Frater can explain to me, on a moral and legal level, how performing a sexual act on someone you know doesn't want that act performed on them is acceptable.

have you ever had 'sex'

not to be a dick or owt, but, heat of the moment and that. things get broke like condoms, hearts and jaws

[Frater Perdurabo]

Okay. Then you and Frater can explain to me, on a moral and legal level, how performing a sexual act on someone you know doesn't want that act performed on them is acceptable.

Very simple. I'll give you the UK take on rape, which is found under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

As you can see, you either consent to the penetration or you don't. There is no such thing as: I consented to him penetrating me but only if he was wearing a condom. He wasn't, but I nevertheless let him do it.
You don't actually need to tell someone: I consent to having sex with you. If you let them penetrate you without any pretensions, that is called implied consent.

How do you define consent?
Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act:
For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

Thus three things have to be proven: choice, freedom & capacity.
Choice and freedom are very close together: essentially someone might be deemed not to have the freedom to consent to sexual intercourse, if for example, their life depended on it. That is, however, subject to Section 1(c), because if the defendant did reasonably believe that the "victim" consented then there cannot be rape.
Capacity is essentially things like age and mental health. A 12 old does not have the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, nor might a mentally retarded person have the capacity.

There's more to it but that's it in a nutshell.

[Stalagmite]

Americans are retarded when it comes to sex.

[Retlaw83]

stuff

I never claimed that telling someone you're wearing a condom then not doing so was rape - I think you misread something somewhere. What I am saying is, it's sleazy and probably some kind of illegal.

You're also acting if the phrase "consent to penetration" is equal to the word "consent" in and of itself.

Americans are retarded when it comes to sex.

And you've been proven to be retarded when it comes to knowledge of anywhere outside of your immediate area, despite your claims to have traveled.

[Blargh]

Technically, <humans> are 'retarded' about <everything>. QED, motherfuckers.

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

No. Technically humans are pretty unretarded about the majority of things. We achieved quite a lot in a short time, as species, and we're surfin the sinewave all the way down to 0.

[Blargh]

No ?

majority

Of what, exactly ?

Things ?

Ahahaha.

quite

Compared to . . . ?

time

Absent of context, and thus, irrelevant.

What have you demonstrated ?

An inherent incapacity/reluctance (both ?) to realise the limitations of your perspective. Instead, you limit your perspective. How serendipitous, then, in these times of looming uncertainty, that your capacity to be wrong stands unhindered, unrelenting, unrepentant. Congratulations.

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

No ?

majority

Of what, exactly ?

Things ?

Ahahaha.

Are you intentionally unaware of mankind's history?
Maybe read up on it instead of learning new words.

Compared to . . . ?

Compared to every other species we're aware of.

Absent of context, and thus, irrelevant.

as species

~50,000 years.

What have you demonstrated ?

An inherent incapacity/reluctance (both ?) to realise the limitations of your perspective. Instead, you limit your perspective. How serendipitous, then, in these times of looming uncertainty, that your capacity to be wrong stands unhindered, unrelenting, unrepentant. Congratulations.

I'll leave this pretentious form of name-calling uncommented. Anything else would be unscientific.

[Frater Perdurabo]

stuff

I never claimed that telling someone you're wearing a condom then not doing so was rape - I think you misread something somewhere. What I am saying is, it's sleazy and probably some kind of illegal.

Hey I think that everyone should wear a condom (for random sex that is), yet it's ultimately up to the parties to choose whether they'll do it or not. I definitely would not call having sex with someone without a condom sleazy, I'd call it irresponsible, yet a substantial part of mankind does it. Take those Catholic lunatics for one.
In addition, I can assure you that no law is being violated. There is no tort or offence of "Having consensual sex without a condom". It wouldn't make any offence, look above for reasons why.

You're also acting if the phrase "consent to penetration" is equal to the word "consent" in and of itself.

Consent is a fairly complex term in criminal law yet what I wrote earlier pretty much summarises it.


Putting the law aside, think about this logically (and ultimately, this is what most of law is based on even) - you're going to have sex with someone, she impliedly consents. The issue of wearing a condom doesn't come up. The two of you go on and do it.

Would it now make sense if she went to the police and said that you committed the offence of X by not wearing a condom? Not in the least.

The other important aspect is that of evidence. What, like 99.9% of acts of sex take place in absolutely privacy, only the parties involved actually know what happened. If the woman manages to file for a charge / claim, she must produce evidence to support it. Yes, she could go to the doctor to have it determined whether she had sex with or without a condom, but for practical purposes, it is nigh impossible to produce evidence as to the discussion that happened between them prior and during the act.

In my view, this only makes sense. Think of the contrary situation. A feminazi can make a little business out of fucking men without a condom and then crying rape (or whatever other offence) afterwards.