[jns]

The sex acts that will be done have to be part of the equation. Otherwise, a guy given consent for vaginal sex, could insist on anal sex to the point of rape and get away with it.

[Stillness]

The sex acts that will be done have to be part of the equation. Otherwise, a guy given consent for vaginal sex, could insist on anal sex to the point of rape and get away with it.

I don't get you. Are you calling PIV sex with and without a condom two different acts?

The key words in your comment to me are "insist...to the point of rape." It doesn't matter what was and was not consented to because consent can be taken away after it was given or given after it was withheld. Years ago I was drunk in the shower with my girlfriend. I began penetrating her and after a while she said, "Do you know where your thing is?" It was in her butt. I had no idea. I asked her why she didn't say anything. She said she thought I meant to put it there. I continued on. After a while she said, "Stop!"

Now I honestly can't remember to what extent we had discussed anal sex before that incident, but I definitely didn't have a go on it. If I had asked her, I'm pretty sure she would have said no. All I had consent for was vaginal sex. Did a rape occur? In my eyes what happened was a private matter and wouldn't even deserve mention except for the fact that your comment reminded me of it. (Unless I had insisted on continuing after she said "stop" - which I did not). What happened with Assange is probably the same. I haven't seen anything that says he forced sex on someone.

[jns]

I don't get you. Are you calling PIV sex with and without a condom two different acts?

The key words in your comment to me are "insist...to the point of rape." It doesn't matter what was and was not consented to because consent can be taken away after it was given or given after it was withheld. Years ago I was drunk in the shower with my girlfriend. I began penetrating her and after a while she said, "Do you know where your thing is?" It was in her butt. I had no idea. I asked her why she didn't say anything. She said she thought I meant to put it there. I continued on. After a while she said, "Stop!"

Now I honestly can't remember to what extent we had discussed anal sex before that incident, but I definitely didn't have a go on it. If I had asked her, I'm pretty sure she would have said no. All I had consent for was vaginal sex. Did a rape occur? In my eyes what happened was a private matter and wouldn't even deserve mention except for the fact that your comment reminded me of it. (Unless I had insisted on continuing after she said "stop" - which I did not). What happened with Assange is probably the same. I haven't seen anything that says he forced sex on someone.

PIV with and without a condom are two different acts it the consent was for one or the other only. Its harder to catch diseases with a condom and its also harder to get pregnant. On the other hand, using a condom may not give the best sensation to either or both partner. In my case, I will not orgasm or ejaculate in a condom due the loss of sensation. So with a partner who insisted on a condom, I would continue until I had gone limp or wanted to stop or my partner wanted to stop. Been there, done that. Decisions have consequences.

I see nothing wrong with your situation other than your description of you being drunk (and possibly not being able to consent). Consent doesn't have to be verbal. If a girl pulls your hips in during sex, she cannot claim that you raped her, at least not at that point. When you penetrated her in the wrong place - an honest mistake, she could have twisted away, said something or made it known that she didn't like what you were doing. The situation of being drunk and in a shower contributed to you getting in the wrong place. Your senses were dulled so you didn't realize the different sensation. You were most likely standing up and not looking closely what you were doing. The water of the shower produced enough lubrication and if it was hot enough, relaxed muscles.

What you didn't say was when you realized you were in the wrong place. Did she have to tell you or did you realize it when she asked "do you know where your thing is"? At that time she still hasn't made it obvious that she didn't want to continue. You had a very logical discussion between the two of you and you continued on. After a while she withdrew any consent and you quit.

If the consent was implied or indistinct, such as beckoning with a finger, pointing to his penis, pointing to her vagina and opening her legs, then use of a condom would be optional unless it was covered by a prior blanket agreement that intercourse will always be done with a condom. Indistinct would "come on big boy, give me everything you have.": no mention of type of sex or protection or anything. If the insistence was that Assange would use a condom and he later unilaterally attempted to void her restriction, then, yes it was rape. If he put pressure on her to recant and then she did, the question of rape could be argued both ways.

[Stillness]

PIV with and without a condom are two different acts it the consent was for one or the other only. Its harder to catch diseases with a condom and its also harder to get pregnant.

I find that a bit of a stretch. Sex with and without a diaphragm or off and on the pill would alter the chances of pregnancy as well. Would a women be raping a man if he refused to have sex without protection and she lied about those things or poked a hole in his condom? What if a woman only had sex with men who had yacht because she wanted a good provider and a guy lied about having one. Is that a different act too - sex with a man with a yacht and sex with a man without one?

If the insistence was that Assange would use a condom and he later unilaterally attempted to void her restriction, then, yes it was rape. If he put pressure on her to recant and then she did, the question of rape could be argued both ways.

Interesting view.
A man refuses to have sex with a woman he's dating without a condom. She hates condoms. While they're naked and engaged in intimate activity leading to penetration he reaches for a condom. She asks him not to put one on. He flatly refuses as always and says he will not have sex without one. She climbs on top of him before he puts it on, grabs his arms back and holds him down, kisses and caresses him, slides him into her, and has sex with him. Is that rape?

[jns]

What if a woman only had sex with men who had yacht because she wanted a good provider and a guy lied about having one. Is that a different act too - sex with a man with a yacht and sex with a man without one?

The basis of rape as defined by law actually comes down to a contract for sexual relations. If there is a contract in place and one side unilaterally changes the terms, I see little distinction between that and having sex by force. Whether it is by inserting a body part for sex or enveloping a body part for sex, again I see little difference.

On the quote above, I suppose she could demand he produce the yacht. That is like everything with contracts, don't get in one with someone you are not relatively sure can hold up their end of the bargain. I think such contracts for sexual relations should be about the sex itself, not who takes out the garbage. Otherwise it is like bartering sex for goods or currency, that is: prostitution.

my answers to your questions

she lied: yes because protection is about sex

he lied: no because the yacht is not about sex

she used force: yes because she used force

A caveat on all: he could always consent to any of the actions and take away any possibilities of rape. And he really needs a yacht.

[Stillness]

Because something is "about sex" doesn't make it rape. Rape involves coercion. The yacht is about sex because this woman could get pregnant and so she wants a good provider. The yacht is her measure. Interestingly, Philippine legal code says that "a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman…by means of fraudulent machination" has committed rape. They disagree with both of us.

The man could have likely stopped the woman or at least protested. She simply seduced him. He gave tacit consent, just like my girlfriend did in the shower. Is that dangerous? Absolutely. Is it rape? Absolutely not. Is lying to get sex (or to get sex the way you want it) dishonest, dirty, immoral - yes. Is it rape? No. All of this stuff is part of the reason that I will never again have sex unless I'm married to the person. There's too much headache and too many possibilities for stuff to go wrong. It's been the downfall of so many men - otherwise great men or men with great causes.

Unfortunately, I believe that's what happened with Assange. He had sex with two women during the same period of time. They found out, got together and decided to get him back. (Interestingly, if you google "7 steps to legal revenge" you can find a post by the "lady" he was staying with who made the coercion claim. She advocates lying about sex to get back at someone who cheated on you.) Mix that with the big fat whistle he kept blowing and you end up trapped in a foreign consulate. Did he rape anybody? Highly doubtful. But when you're taking on the greatest military/financial power on the planet, you have to be an angel. He wasn't. He's paying the price.

Edit: I would agree that if you fooled someone and it hurt them or caused a pregnancy, then that would be criminal. Because then your actions will have made a victim. It's not rape, but it's some kind of criminal misconduct.

[rcoreyus]

I'd limit the definition of rape to be a sexual act without consent at the time the sex is occurring. I believe consent can be withdrawn almost immediately at any point, but it must be withdrawn clearly. There are a number of situations where this get confusing:

Drunkenness - how inebriated each person needs to be for their consent to be valid is a tricky issue.

Sleep - i think you need to decide if a "reasonable person" would have expected you to initiate a particular sex act with a sleeping person. Initiating sex with a sleeping stranger would likely be attempted rape. Initiating sex with a long term intimate partner might not be rape if initiating sex without asking permission is a normal part of the relationship. Initiating a different type of sex (say anal) with a sleeping partner might be rape, if you had reason to think they would not consent. (still this is something I would avoid without a clear agreement first)

Deception - I'd say that pretending to be someone you aren't or to be using birth control or disease protection when you are not might count as rape.

Doing something unexpected during sex could be rape, but I'd only call it that in the most extreme cases. Finishing in a woman's mouth during a BJ without warning might be rude, but isn't rape in my book. Suddenly penetrating her anally without warning might be if that is not part of your normal activities. (I'd only view this as rape if it were intentional and if it were done so suddenly that she couldn't object). This is a very grey area since different people may have very different ideas about what sort of activities are expected in a sexual encounter.

Other forms of deception - such as pretending to be wealthy when you are not, do not constitute rape to me.

[Stillness]

I can just imagine a man running to the police saying he was raped, then being laughed out of the station when he explains that he found out his wife stopped taking her birth control a week ago.

I do agree somewhat on the identity deception. If a sister passed herself off as her twin to her half-sleep brother-in-law in the dark, I'd say rape. If a Denzel Washington look-alike passed himself off as the real deal to get some lovin', I say low-life, but not a rapist.

[rcoreyus]

Maybe for sanity's sake we need to drop lying about birth control as rape. It could be some other crime depending on the circumstances. Same for lying about disease protection - not rape, but in some cases could be reckless endangerment.

I agree with both of those identity deception decisions - but I can't figure out why they are different, or how that could be codified into law.

I can just imagine a man running to the police saying he was raped, then being laughed out of the station when he explains that he found out his wife stopped taking her birth control a week ago.

I do agree somewhat on the identity deception. If a sister passed herself off as her twin to her half-sleep brother-in-law in the dark, I'd say rape. If a Denzel Washington look-alike passed himself off as the real deal to get some lovin', I say low-life, but not a rapist.

[Stillness]

I'm not sharp enough to word this well, but there is a big difference. In the case of the evil twin sister she didn't have consent because she didn't give him the opportunity to give it. She maliciously used an existing consensual arrangement with a different person. In the case of "Denzel" the person engaged in sex is the one with whom consent was arranged. He only lied about his identity.

All of this stuff could probably be broadly categorized as sexual misconduct. Rape is just too strong a word for some of it though. The violation, violence, and the malice is just not there. In Stillnessville the twin would be executed, but the impersonator would probably just be fined, beat and sent home with a warning.