5 ms·

This is similar to slut shaming. How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance. You could w

This is similar to slut shaming. How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance. You could walk around in bondage gear all day, it doesn't mean you're asking to be raped, or change the legitimacy of accusations of rape. If someone has sex with you against your will (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime. Full stop.

draugadrotten 13y ago
> How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty. Once upon a time, the burden of proof was on the accuser. When Mr Assange is accused of rape, with no proof except the accusation, Mr Assanged is asked to prove his innocence. I dare say that how someone acts before sex is the most significant indicator on if sex was consensual that we can find. > (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime. Mind you, would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Let's not keep double standards for the lying men and lying women. Well, you might, but I can not label this as "rape". If someone lies about using protection, it makes them liars but not rapists.
- alanctgardner2 13y ago
  OK, to get this out of the way: the law in the jurisdiction he's being charged in explicitly considers this to be rape. It's not trumped up by the media, it's how the law is written. > It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty The presumption is that he is accused, and he ran away and never had a trial. You can't really run away from the trial forever, hide behind the "presumed innocent" doctrine, and say it makes you a saint. It just means you haven't been convicted, because it was mechanically hard to get you to the right place to convict you. > would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Condoms offer protection from STIs, as well as pregnancy. Lying about using a condom potentially exposes your partner to myriad health problems, in addition to unwanted pregnancy. So no, it isn't equivalent to lying about using the pill - lying about the pill doesn't change your risk of contracting HPV, HIV, etc. If a woman lies about using birth control, and she does conceive, she's either going to have an abortion (which is physically and psychologically traumatic), or go through pregnancy and birth. The father has some obligation (which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied), but there's not really any physical risk there. He's not going to catch a life-threatening disease from someone lying about the pill.
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    "which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied" While I agree with you on everything else you've said, this one is untrue in the US. Even if a woman lies about being on the pill or infertile or whatever, if she has a child and you are the father, you are on the hook for child support. Doesn't matter if she lied. The law looks out for the child, first and foremost, and the child did not lie to you. So, if you're really not wanting to have a child with someone and not wanting the responsibility of paying child support, use protection or don't have sex with her.

draugadrotten 13y ago

> How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty. Once upon a time, the burden of proof was on the accuser. When Mr Assange is accused of rape, with no proof except the accusation, Mr Assanged is asked to prove his innocence. I dare say that how someone acts before sex is the most significant indicator on if sex was consensual that we can find. > (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime. Mind you, would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Let's not keep double standards for the lying men and lying women. Well, you might, but I can not label this as "rape". If someone lies about using protection, it makes them liars but not rapists.

alanctgardner2 13y ago
OK, to get this out of the way: the law in the jurisdiction he's being charged in explicitly considers this to be rape. It's not trumped up by the media, it's how the law is written. > It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty The presumption is that he is accused, and he ran away and never had a trial. You can't really run away from the trial forever, hide behind the "presumed innocent" doctrine, and say it makes you a saint. It just means you haven't been convicted, because it was mechanically hard to get you to the right place to convict you. > would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Condoms offer protection from STIs, as well as pregnancy. Lying about using a condom potentially exposes your partner to myriad health problems, in addition to unwanted pregnancy. So no, it isn't equivalent to lying about using the pill - lying about the pill doesn't change your risk of contracting HPV, HIV, etc. If a woman lies about using birth control, and she does conceive, she's either going to have an abortion (which is physically and psychologically traumatic), or go through pregnancy and birth. The father has some obligation (which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied), but there's not really any physical risk there. He's not going to catch a life-threatening disease from someone lying about the pill.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  "which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied" While I agree with you on everything else you've said, this one is untrue in the US. Even if a woman lies about being on the pill or infertile or whatever, if she has a child and you are the father, you are on the hook for child support. Doesn't matter if she lied. The law looks out for the child, first and foremost, and the child did not lie to you. So, if you're really not wanting to have a child with someone and not wanting the responsibility of paying child support, use protection or don't have sex with her.