I was just talking about this at the SVU board. Yesterday they had an eppy where a man was seducing women but beforehand he was poking holes in the condom so that he could impregnate them. In the episode they talked about it being like rape, but couldn't charge him cause it was too subjective a theory. What do you think about a man being charged with rape if he intentionally sabotages a condom beforehand?

Nah, not rape. Nobody needs to be tampering with the "rape" term, making it subjective. That behavior is malice.

RedBedroom wrote:

Nah, not rape. Nobody needs to be tampering with the "rape" term, making it subjective. That behavior is malice.

Charge it as fraud, not rape.

Yeah, what Red said. That ain't rape at all. You still slept with him.

No. Devious but not even close to rape.

If he seduced her and she slept with him willingly that is not rape.

Tony Marino wrote:

If he seduced her and she slept with him willingly that is not rape.

This is true but she relied on him to use protection when in fact the guy sabotaged enough condoms that he had 47 kids all over the world and was still trying for more.

Supernova wrote:

Tony Marino wrote:

If he seduced her and she slept with him willingly that is not rape.

This is true but she relied on him to use protection when in fact the guy sabotaged enough condoms that he had 47 kids all over the world and was still trying for more.

But it still doesn't qualify as rape. It's underhandedness just as when a woman lies to a man & intentionally gets pregnant. If that could be defined as rape, a woman would be guilty of raping the man. Both parties have the responsibility of taking precautions for themselves & not rely on the other one to do it for them.

I believe rape is a forced sex act. She was not forced to have sex. I agree that she was fooled but she still had sex knowing there is a chance of pregnancy however remote that may be. Also, when you put trust in an individual there is a percentage that you are being lied to however minute the chance may be. You are taking a chance with everybody you have sex with, that's reality. You just play the odds who you are willing to put the most trust on.

You have a great day.
Friendly Veteran

Rape? lol The idea is laughable. You willingly slept with him, thus not rape. Devious? Maybe. But hey, you choose to do it. It's not like he forced himself on anyone. People deceive with sex all the time. It's the risk you assume with such behavior.

The asshole is a conniving shit head but I think a rape charge is like a slap in the face to the real victims.

No not "Rape" as an official charge, but I do think anyone who tampers with sexual protection behind their partners back should be criminally charged.

Angel wrote:

No not "Rape" as an official charge, but I do think anyone who tampers with sexual protection behind their partners back should be criminally charged.

femme fatale wrote:

I was just talking about this at the SVU board. Yesterday they had an eppy where a man was seducing women but beforehand he was poking holes in the condom so that he could impregnate them. In the episode they talked about it being like rape, but couldn't charge him cause it was too subjective a theory. What do you think about a man being charged with rape if he intentionally sabotages a condom beforehand?

I was all ready to say NO immediately when I read this, but then I thought about it a little more. On the one hand, I can definetely see the argument for rape because "he" (in this case) intentionally misled "her" to think that they were having safe sex, before sabotaging the safeness factor. Would she still have made the decision to have sex if she knew that there was holes in the condom? Probably not. So she in fact "consented" based on his deception. If a drunk woman isn't able to consent, then why is a woman who is mislead, lied to and sabotaged?

HOWEVER, one has to be objective when it comes to these situations and no matter how you slice it, you have to ask yourself "what if the situation was reversed". If a WOMAN poked holes in a condom and the man cried RAPE, would anyone take that seriously? Would anyone care? Probably not, and in fact they would probably say that it was his fault, his responsibility or that he should have known better. So with that in mind, I'm going to have to say no to the original question because it would only realistically favor women. Since nobody accepts the fact that a woman can rape a man, this would literally be a one-way rape, on a technicality. To me, laws should be consistent and non biased. Until that can be reconciled, I can't support calling this rape (even though I can definetely understand teh argument behind it).

Tony Marino wrote:

If he seduced her and she slept with him willingly that is not rape.

That's not true in all cases. There are certain instances where it is viewed as rape whether it was consentual or not. For instance if the female is 15 and the male is 19, the law calls it statutory RAPE! If the female is drunk and both "consent" to sex (regardless of whether he was drunk or not), the law calls it RAPE.

People use deception in sex all the time. It's wrong but it isn't rape and should never be classified as such.

No, it shouldn't be considered as rape. Rape is force, not deceit. Men who poke holes in condoms should be criminally charged, but honestly, how can they prove that anyway? Even when a condom goes untampered with, there's still that tiny 1% chance that pregnancy may happen anyway, with it being 99% effective.