LogFAQs > #925167845

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Do you guys think using "implications" to get sex is rape?
dioxxys 07/25/19 12:55:39 PM #164:	Mead posted... dioxxys posted... Bugmeat posted... greenmist01 posted... Apparently in Sweden......(correct me if im wrong here), apparently, if a woman consents to sex with a man, provided he wears a condom, but during the sex, the man takes off the condom, and then puts his penis into her vagina and continues the sex, its rape. If true, I don't see a problem with this. I do, you can have misunderstandings about this and miscommunicate things that could lead to man being punished for something as simple as not wearing protection and try to equate that to forceful unwarranted sex. That isnt what is being described If a guy intentionally removes a condom without his partner knowing or consenting to unprotected sex then that guy is in no way a victim in the situation But how is it supposed to be proved intentional or not? I say this because I have lived a similar circumstance where I had a misunderstanding with my sexual partner and where I thought she was consenting to no condom (as she had teased me with no-condom before). Turns out she was actually spaced out or something and had a serious issue with it later. Not during when the reality of it hit her. She was really bothered by it, but instead of sitting down with me and having a discussion about how it bothered her, she cut me off. Which is her choice but while she should have just talked it over with me though I think she had been already looking for a reason to cut me off because now looking back, I was overstepping the fuck buddies boundary into the more like "boyfriend/girlfriend territory". Had we lived in Sweden, she could have claimed rape, and I would have been seen as a vicious sexual predator, thats in no way just or fair. And thats my point in saying this is a flawed law. <cite>dioxxys posted [p:925167845] in Do you guy... [t:77871100]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>dioxxys posted...</cite> <quote>Bugmeat posted...</cite> <quote><cite>greenmist01 posted...</cite> <quote>Apparently in Sweden......(correct me if im wrong here), apparently, if a woman consents to sex with a man, provided he wears a condom, but during the sex, the man takes off the condom, and then puts his penis into her vagina and continues the sex, its rape.</quote> If true, I don't see a problem with this. </quote> I do, you can have misunderstandings about this and miscommunicate things that could lead to man being punished for something as simple as not wearing protection and try to equate that to forceful unwarranted sex.</quote> That isnt what is being described If a guy intentionally removes a condom without his partner knowing or consenting to unprotected sex then that guy is in no way a victim in the situation</quote> But how is it supposed to be proved intentional or not? I say this because I have lived a similar circumstance where I had a misunderstanding with my sexual partner and where I thought she was consenting to no condom (as she had teased me with no-condom before). Turns out she was actually spaced out or something and had a serious issue with it later. Not during when the reality of it hit her. She was really bothered by it, but instead of sitting down with me and having a discussion about how it bothered her, she cut me off. Which is her choice but while she should have just talked it over with me though I think she had been already looking for a reason to cut me off because now looking back, I was overstepping the fuck buddies boundary into the more like "boyfriend/girlfriend territory". Had we lived in Sweden, she could have claimed rape, and I would have been seen as a vicious sexual predator, thats in no way just or fair. And thats my point in saying this is a flawed law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1