Poll of the Day > Do you guys think using "implications" to get sex is rape?

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.


---

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.

This is called stealthing, and it is illegal in some places. The reason it's considered rape is because the woman consented to sex only on the condition a condom was used. Removing the condom means consent is revoked.
---

If true, I don't see a problem with this.

You dont?. you don't think it is blatant exploitation?. What fundementaly defines an act of sex as rape, is when you make sex on someone without their consent. If the woman consents to sex only on the condition of the man wearing a condom, but then during the sex he takes the condom off, then he has removed the very condition for the sex.

Someone consenting to sex only under a strict condition, does not automaticly equal all conditions are permissable. Personally I think it's a very selfish thing to do, when you consider that the reason for someone wanting a condom worn during sex, is to protect them from STDs and pregnancies.

But id imagine that stealthing is a very hard crime to prove, and ultimately it probably falls down on, the defendant's word vs the prosecutors word.

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.

Yeah thats definitely rape

Obviously different that some worse situations, but still fundamentally wrong
---

greenmist01 posted...

If true, I don't see a problem with this.

You dont?. you don't think it is blatant exploitation?. What fundementaly defines an act of sex as rape, is when you make sex on someone without their consent. If the woman consents to sex only on the condition of the man wearing a condom, but then during the sex he takes the condom off, then he has removed the very condition for the sex.

Someone consenting to sex only under a strict condition, does not automaticly equal all conditions are permissable. Personally I think it's a very selfish thing to do, when you consider that the reason for someone wanting a condom worn during sex, is to protect them from STDs and pregnancies.

But id imagine that stealthing is a very hard crime to prove, and ultimately it probably falls down on, the defendant's word vs the prosecutors word.

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...

Considering that Bugmeat previously posted that the scenario in the first post isn't rape, I doubt that's what was intended.
---

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...

Considering that Bugmeat previously posted that the scenario in the first post isn't rape, I doubt that's what was intended.

You and green mist seem to have a very hard time with reading comprehension. I'm sitting here completely baffled at how such a simple and straight forward post like "if true, I don't see a problem with this" could be misunderstood at all, let alone by two people. He says "I think I this is what happens in Sweden" I say "I don't have a problem with that". How the hell did both of you misunderstand that?

And taking the condom off without permission is entirely different than the scenario from It's Always Sunny. Pull your head out of your ass. The lack of oxygen is clearly having an effect on your cognitive abilities.


---

The lack of oxygen is clearly having an effect on your cognitive abilities.

It was an honest mistake on my part. Its not like i acted upset by what i thought you said. Wasnt trying to be a social justice warrior or special snowflake in this thread.

Personally i think its daft and a waste of emotional energy to act all triggered by a view point or opinion a total stranger living miles away from me on the other end of a computer

Bugmeat posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...

Considering that Bugmeat previously posted that the scenario in the first post isn't rape, I doubt that's what was intended.

You and green mist seem to have a very hard time with reading comprehension. I'm sitting here completely baffled at how such a simple and straight forward post like "if true, I don't see a problem with this" could be misunderstood at all, let alone by two people. He says "I think I this is what happens in Sweden" I say "I don't have a problem with that". How the hell did both of you misunderstand that?

And taking the condom off without permission is entirely different than the scenario from It's Always Sunny. Pull your head out of your ass. The lack of oxygen is clearly having an effect on your cognitive abilities.

All I said was that I doubted that's what you meant. The fact that you feel the need to attack people for a simple misunderstanding you created reflects more on you than us. "If true, I don't see a problem with this" could have been referring to either the act or the law. Based on your previous statements, I figured you meant the act. It frankly baffles me that you agree removing a condom is rape (horrible, but legal in many places), yet feel that it's not rape to create a situation where a girl feels she has no choice but to agree to sex (something that could very well lead to charges, especially with alcohol involved).
---

Lirishae posted...

Bugmeat posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...

Considering that Bugmeat previously posted that the scenario in the first post isn't rape, I doubt that's what was intended.

You and green mist seem to have a very hard time with reading comprehension. I'm sitting here completely baffled at how such a simple and straight forward post like "if true, I don't see a problem with this" could be misunderstood at all, let alone by two people. He says "I think I this is what happens in Sweden" I say "I don't have a problem with that". How the hell did both of you misunderstand that?

And taking the condom off without permission is entirely different than the scenario from It's Always Sunny. Pull your head out of your ass. The lack of oxygen is clearly having an effect on your cognitive abilities.

All I said was that I doubted that's what you meant. The fact that you feel the need to attack people for a simple misunderstanding you created reflects more on you than us. "If true, I don't see a problem with this" could have been referring to either the act or the law. Based on your previous statements, I figured you meant the act. It frankly baffles me that you agree removing a condom is rape (horrible, but legal in many places), yet feel that it's not rape to create a situation where a girl feels she has no choice but to agree to sex (something that could very well lead to charges, especially with alcohol involved).

To some, it might feel like an attack on their character. What he said was pretty straightforward. Which is why I said what I did. While it could be interpreted differently, its like saying you think he would think of it in a worse way. Which would probably feel like you saying hes a bad person. By you saying that its probably not why he meant based on another scenario thats different probably doesnt help, either. And since people can hear the tones of others through screens, things can sound very different to people...
---

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.

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
---

Lirishae posted...

The fact that you feel the need to attack people for a simple misunderstanding you created reflects more on you than us.

You chose the more malicious answer over the more linguistically sensible one because you look on him poorly, that makes you look terrible.

Lirishae posted...

It frankly baffles me that you agree removing a condom is rape (horrible, but legal in many places), yet feel that it's not rape to create a situation where a girl feels she has no choice but to agree to sex (something that could very well lead to charges, especially with alcohol involved).

In one situation you distinctly do what they do not want against their wishes. Pretty open and shut case, no argument.

In the other you do nothing wrong, but the girl decides she wants to voluntarily fuck who she believes is a rapist to avoid the very situation she's agreeing to. In that situation the girl is acting irrationally and against her own interests, and assuming you don't like rape, also against yours. You can't call someone a criminal because you tried to avoid an imaginary threat from someone acting entirely legally as most people do.
---

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.

dioxxys posted...

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.

Idk about your situation. But in this one, consent was given if they had a condom. And during sex, they take it off without the knowledge of the other person, and then continue sex. Or take it off, and the other person says no, and they continue sex. Thats whats going on in that scenario. Not just unprotected sex. This is when condom use was a requirement, and you started with one, then take it off. Want to make sure its. Or classified as rape, then keep the condom on. Or only have unprotected sex with certain people... in Sweden, at least... Its. Or a hard rule to follow, I would think. It can be exploited like any other rule, sure. But they still probably have procedures to figure out whos telling the truth and everything... But not taking a condom off while the act of having sex would probably help. Either wear the condom the whole time, or never put it on if its ok with them...
---

But you speak as though all of the peoples rules for sex was written in stone, sex communications are rarely even done on a basic level. In fact, most sex is wild and unplanned and can happen instantaneously, yes even with the expectation of a condom. I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

dioxxys posted...

I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

I don't believe a word you typed.
---

dioxxys posted...

But you speak as though all of the peoples rules for sex was written in stone, sex communications are rarely even done on a basic level. In fact, most sex is wild and unplanned and can happen instantaneously, yes even with the expectation of a condom. I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

Sure. And you can do that is the US. Just dont do it in Sweden. They have their rules and laws for their own reasons. Maybe stealthing is a big problem there. Maybe it is here, but nobody cares. Also, I can believe some have. But most people seem to either go raw or with condoms. It seems unlikely that a lot of people are starting with condoms and ripping them off halfway through because it feels better. They already knew it would feel better without the condoms. Most of the time, the only ones who dont/wont know that are virgins. Also, in your case, it seems that the female wants it, too. So, theres that.
---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

dioxxys posted...

I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

I don't believe a word you typed.

I cant help you there.

+

dioxxys posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

dioxxys posted...

I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

I don't believe a word you typed.

I cant help you there.

+

I can understand where hes coming from. It doesnt seem likely that many people want to start with a condom and then tell you to take it off. People seem to like to use them if they dont believe youre clean or as another form of birth control (normally when not on the pill). Or to be safe. And if they made you wear a condom for one of those reasons, it does seem unlikely that they would ask you to take it off because they feel better. Especially if they already had sex before... and knew how it felt with both a condom and without one.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You chose the more malicious answer over the more linguistically sensible one because you look on him poorly, that makes you look terrible.

Oh, for crying out loud. I never said anything remotely like that, and I didn't "choose" anything. I said I thought one interpretation was more likely based on previous statements by the same poster. You're trying to call me out for taking someone's words the wrong way because you think I have a poor opinion of them, but guess what you're doing right now?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

In one situation you distinctly do what they do not want against their wishes. Pretty open and shut case, no argument.

In the other you do nothing wrong,

Oh, good lord. The second scenario is about making a woman agree to have sex because she's afraid for her safety if she doesn't. That's plenty wrong. Even Know Your Meme acknowledges this point. The first scenario, while thoroughly reprehensible, legally does not constitute rape in the majority of the US. The second one, also thoroughly reprehensible, can very well be charged as a crime depending on what and where it happened. States have differing laws about coerced consent and how alcohol affects the ability to give consent.
---

LinkPizza posted...

dioxxys posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

dioxxys posted...

I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

I don't believe a word you typed.

I cant help you there.

+

I can understand where hes coming from. It doesnt seem likely that many people want to start with a condom and then tell you to take it off. People seem to like to use them if they dont believe youre clean or as another form of birth control (normally when not on the pill). Or to be safe. And if they made you wear a condom for one of those reasons, it does seem unlikely that they would ask you to take it off because they feel better. Especially if they already had sex before... and knew how it felt with both a condom and without one.

Yup yup. Story doesn't make sense.
---

LinkPizza posted...

dioxxys posted...

But you speak as though all of the peoples rules for sex was written in stone, sex communications are rarely even done on a basic level. In fact, most sex is wild and unplanned and can happen instantaneously, yes even with the expectation of a condom. I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

Sure. And you can do that is the US. Just dont do it in Sweden. They have their rules and laws for their own reasons. Maybe stealthing is a big problem there. Maybe it is here, but nobody cares. Also, I can believe some have. But most people seem to either go raw or with condoms. It seems unlikely that a lot of people are starting with condoms and ripping them off halfway through because it feels better. They already knew it would feel better without the condoms. Most of the time, the only ones who dont/wont know that are virgins. Also, in your case, it seems that the female wants it, too. So, theres that.

If you cant see where this law is a slippery slope that has room for misinterpretation, I cant get you to see that. In your mind you've seemed to solidify this idea that the only reason someone would forgo a condom is through dishonesty and thats just not right because I have lived the circumstance and know this could be something that unintentionally hurts mens regular sex lives.

LinkPizza posted...

I can understand where hes coming from. It doesnt seem likely that many people want to start with a condom and then tell you to take it off. People seem to like to use them if they dont believe youre clean or as another form of birth control (normally when not on the pill). Or to be safe. And if they made you wear a condom for one of those reasons, it does seem unlikely that they would ask you to take it off because they feel better. Especially if they already had sex before... and knew how it felt with both a condom and without one.

Its called building a relationship and once you trust each other you have no qualms about putting your faith in another person, then you can enjoy sex in its purest form.

dioxxys posted...

LinkPizza posted...

dioxxys posted...

But you speak as though all of the peoples rules for sex was written in stone, sex communications are rarely even done on a basic level. In fact, most sex is wild and unplanned and can happen instantaneously, yes even with the expectation of a condom. I have had many girls who want to start with condoms and I eventually convince them to go raw with me, because it feels better for both of us. Also many girls claim to be able to feel the difference.

Sure. And you can do that is the US. Just dont do it in Sweden. They have their rules and laws for their own reasons. Maybe stealthing is a big problem there. Maybe it is here, but nobody cares. Also, I can believe some have. But most people seem to either go raw or with condoms. It seems unlikely that a lot of people are starting with condoms and ripping them off halfway through because it feels better. They already knew it would feel better without the condoms. Most of the time, the only ones who dont/wont know that are virgins. Also, in your case, it seems that the female wants it, too. So, theres that.

If you cant see where this law is a slippery slope that has room for misinterpretation, I cant get you to see that. In your mind you've seemed to solidify this idea that the only reason someone would forgo a condom is through dishonesty and thats just not right because I have lived the circumstance and know this could be something that unintentionally hurts mens regular sex lives.

A lot of laws are slippery slopes. But again, it depends on why they have that law. Its like when they have stupid rules in the military that shouldnt be needed. The reason is because someone did something stupid. If its a big problem over there, then they may need the rule. The law itself doesnt mater as much as how they enforce or deal with it...

dioxxys posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I can understand where hes coming from. It doesnt seem likely that many people want to start with a condom and then tell you to take it off. People seem to like to use them if they dont believe youre clean or as another form of birth control (normally when not on the pill). Or to be safe. And if they made you wear a condom for one of those reasons, it does seem unlikely that they would ask you to take it off because they feel better. Especially if they already had sex before... and knew how it felt with both a condom and without one.

Its called building a relationship and once you trust each other you have no qualms about putting your faith in another person, then you can enjoy sex in its purest form.

Sure. But that usually doesnt happen in the middle of sex. Usually, it happens before sex where they say something like, You dont need to use one this time. So, I still stand by what I said about it sounding kind of weird.

Also, if you have built a relationship with them, you should trust them enough to know they wont call the cops on you for stealthing...
---

Lirishae posted...

Oh, for crying out loud. I never said anything remotely like that, and I didn't "choose" anything. I said I thought one interpretation was more likely based on previous statements by the same poster. You're trying to call me out for taking someone's words the wrong way because you think I have a poor opinion of them, but guess what you're doing right now?

Your interpretation came from thinking poorly of him, and if you had an unbiased view of him, you would have assumed he was responding to the most recent thing, and he was.

Don't try to flip this, you done wrong.

Lirishae posted...

Oh, good lord. The second scenario is about making a woman agree to have sex because she's afraid for her safety if she doesn't. That's plenty wrong.

Following English common law, there's the lovely prerequisite that it's not rape if the "rapist" reasonably believed consent was given. If she says yes to sex and acts without any threat being used (which he knows he's not doing), he reasonably believed it was consensual so you can't charge.

If you do not want sex then you say you do not want sex; to agree to something you don't want is insane and puts the blame squarely on you.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Your interpretation came from thinking poorly of him, and if you had an unbiased view of him, you would have assumed he was responding to the most recent thing, and he was.

Don't try to flip this, you done wrong.

I'm sorry, but you're being a total hypocrite. If you had an unbiased view of me, you wouldn't be assuming the worst of me. I never said a word impugning his character at any point. And I love how you're singling me out while not saying a single word to the other person who came to the exact same conclusion. You've spent multiple posts castigating me, and only me, for an honest misunderstanding of a vaguely worded post. By your very own standards, you're the one that's done wrong here.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Following English common law, there's the lovely prerequisite that it's not rape if the "rapist" reasonably believed consent was given. If she says yes to sex and acts without any threat being used (which he knows he's not doing), he reasonably believed it was consensual so you can't charge.

If you do not want sex then you say you do not want sex; to agree to something you don't want is insane and puts the blame squarely on you.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd say the same thing about giving up your wallet to a swarthy guy accosting you in a back alley. Blaming the woman for being afraid to say no when it's the man who purposely created that situation is ridiculous. In the scenario being discussed, the man isn't some dude who innocently believes everything was on the up and up. He knows exactly what he's doing: using alcohol (the number one date rape drug) and the implied threat of physical harm to coerce a woman to have sex with him. And you're blaming her for misunderstanding, not the man who by his own admission deliberately created the misunderstanding. English common law is not state law, either. Laws vary from state to state, but many have laws about implied threats, coerced consent, and alcohol rendering someone unable to give consent. It is beyond me why you're defending this.
---

If youre talking about alcohol, then consent cant be given, anyway. Legally, you cant consent when drunk, even if you normally would. But even without alcohol, she can easily say no still. Whats the worst that happens if she says no? She gets thrown overboard. That can still happen if she says yes. Tbh, I think it really depends on the situation. We may all be seeing this situation differently. Which may be why were coming to different conclusions...
---

dioxxys posted...

Its called building a relationship and once you trust each other you have no qualms about putting your faith in another person, then you can enjoy sex in its purest form.

what a crock, i've had sex with a lot of women, and it's like pulling teeth, ok?
---

Lirishae posted...

If you had an unbiased view of me, you wouldn't be assuming the worst of me. I never said a word impugning his character at any point.

Your misinterpretation was impugning his character, that's the whole point. You went out of your way to view what he said negatively rather than accepting the more logical and more flattering response.

Lirishae posted...

And I love how you're singling me out while not saying a single word to the other person who came to the exact same conclusion.

I'm not going to post the same thing multiple times for the sake of fairness. Everybody doing the same thing can assume this applies to them too.

Lirishae posted...

an honest misunderstanding of a vaguely worded post.

It wasn't vague, you chose to take advantage of the greyness of English to legitimise a malicious and unlikely conclusion. Because English is naturally grey, you are meant to assume the most likely result, not what suits you.

Lirishae posted...

Yeah, I'm sure you'd say the same thing about giving up your wallet to a swarthy guy accosting you in a back alley.

1. Reasonable belief
2. I have a history of resisting muggings, one with a knife, this is a poor example against me.
---

Lirishae posted...

Blaming the woman for being afraid to say no when it's the man who purposely created that situation is ridiculous.

She had no reason to believe it's a purposeful set-up, so it's irrational to interpret a boat ride she agreed to is a floating rape dungeon when it suits her wild imaginings. If she was threatened by the thought of being raped on a boat, she wouldn't agree to board, so the later conclusion is her being irrational.

Lirishae posted...

In the scenario being discussed, the man isn't some dude who innocently believes everything was on the up and up

Again, she doesn't know this, she can't reasonably assume he's the extremely rare man who raped strangers.

Lirishae posted...

He knows exactly what he's doing: using alcohol (the number one date rape drug)

Lolgtfo

Lirishae posted...

and the implied threat of physical harm to coerce a woman to have sex with him.

Implied as in "he was a male"? It either is a threat or it isn't. A threat can be delivered by an implication, but it's still a full-on threat. If a threat is actually made, it is rape and nobody disputes it.

Lirishae posted...

And you're blaming her for misunderstanding, not the man who by his own admission deliberately created the misunderstanding.

He's taking advantage of her madness which is plenty scummy, but he did not threat or force any action. By acting sanely she can leave freely, so by acting irrationally she has hurt herself. As is always the case, you must actually state what you want for you to claim somebody is trying to make you act against your interests.

Lirishae posted...

English common law is not state law, either. Laws vary from state to state, but many have laws about implied threats, coerced consent, and alcohol rendering someone unable to give consent. It is beyond me why you're defending this.

English common law is the basis for these laws, and as you said, the states vary. We can't argue how things are when there are 50 different "how things are".
---