UN rules in favour of Assange

[Gilrandir]

I think you need to buy some new glasses buddy.
She was asleep at the time of ehm, insertion, and upon waking up she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he lied and siad he was. After "completion" she of course for natural causes quickly discovered that he had in fact lied to her, I can't recall if she threw him out then and there or not.

I'm afraid you hadn't made it clear it the post. Let me quote you:

At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

I had presumed that an agreement between two people is reached when, ehm, both of them are awake and sentient.

[Snowhobbit]

I'm afraid you hadn't made it clear it the post. Let me quote you:


I had presumed that an agreement between two people is reached when, ehm, both of them are awake and sentient.

And instead of asking for clarification you jump to the most extreme conclusion you could imagine? I can see why Ukraine is in the state it is in...

An agreement had been reached prior to the night in question, when they had previously had consensual sex. People can agree to things and time can pass after said agreement was initially made.

[rory_20_uk]

So... if a woman states she is taking the Pill and is in fact lying and gets pregnant she is in breach of agreement and should be prosecuted rather than demanding child support from the father?

[Snowhobbit]

So... if a woman states she is taking the Pill and is in fact lying and gets pregnant she is in breach of agreement and should be prosecuted rather than demanding child support from the father?

Well, if that is what the law said, and disregarding that child support is for the child rather than the mother, sure. Though you might get a case of Pactum Turpe at which point the courts would not touch it. Do you prosecute people for breach of contract in the UK? Or maybe rape is legalized?

[rory_20_uk]

Well, if that is what the law said, and disregarding that child support is for the child rather than the mother, sure. Though you might get a case of Pactum Turpe at which point the courts would not touch it. Do you prosecute people for breach of contract in the UK? Or maybe rape is legalized?

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.

Oh yes, of course the money is for the child... but that misses the whole point: in this situation the man is closer to a sperm doner who did not consent and there is no contract in place so as such the mother should take responsibility for her actions given in the example the agreement was for sex not procreation.

[Snowhobbit]

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.

Oh yes, of course the money is for the child... but that misses the whole point: in this situation the man is closer to a sperm doner who did not consent and there is no contract in place so as such the mother should take responsibility for her actions given in the example the agreement was for sex not procreation.

I'm not sure how UK law works, you might be right. It is certainly possible to convict a woman of raping a man in Sweden however.

Our modern societies do not require there to be a contract in order for fatherhood to be established with all of the rights and obligations which that entails. I'm not sure of exactly how much of a legalized society you envision living in, but I'm fairly sure that even in the UK you become a father without a contract?

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not sure how UK law works, you might be right. It is certainly possible to convict a woman of raping a man in Sweden however.

Our modern societies do not require there to be a contract in order for fatherhood to be established with all of the rights and obligations which that entails. I'm not sure of exactly how much of a legalized society you envision living in, but I'm fairly sure that even in the UK you become a father without a contract?

Yes, that is the point. If you are male you pretty much need the signed paperwork beforehand as any misunderstanding means you are fighting a rape charge. If you're female and decide to keep a pregnancy you can go after the other party.

I'd like to not live in such a society but since the alternative can be 18 years of payments it does seem codifying the area is the least bad option.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given that a woman can not rape a man given the definition or rape, that would not come up.

You are confusing Rape and Sexual Assault - rape is a specific crime which can only be committed by men, and usually only against women, because of the attendant consequences.

It's like how, technically, men can't be virgins.

[rory_20_uk]

You are confusing Rape and Sexual Assault - rape is a specific crime which can only be committed by men, and usually only against women, because of the attendant consequences.

It's like how, technically, men can't be virgins.

I'm not confusing the two - rape as a minimum prison sentence of 8 years. Sexual assault ranges from 4-8. So technically men can end up in jail for twice as long.

[Gilrandir]

And instead of asking for clarification you jump to the most extreme conclusion you could imagine? I can see why Ukraine is in the state it is in...

Individual peculiarities and attitudes can't be symptomatic of the state of the whole country (unless those are peculiarities and attitudes of the country's leader). Generalizing like you do is a cheap shot which does not reflect a great credit on you as a communicator and polemicist.

An agreement had been reached prior to the night in question, when they had previously had consensual sex. People can agree to things and time can pass after said agreement was initially made.

Hasn't it occurred to you that I might have been misled by the grammar mistake you made?
You said:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one. (the bold is mine).
while it should have been:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman had been that they only would have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

So shall I say that if Swedes are so quick to anger disregarding a beam in their own eye it is a sad future that I envisage for Sweden? No I won't. I know some Swedes here who are a complete opposite.

[Snowhobbit]

Individual peculiarities and attitudes can't be symptomatic of the state of the whole country (unless those are peculiarities and attitudes of the country's leader). Generalizing like you do is a cheap shot which does not reflect a great credit on you as a communicator and polemicist.



Hasn't it occurred to you that I might have been misled by the grammar mistake you made?
You said:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman was that they only have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one. (the bold is mine).
while it should have been:
At night he got a little itch and felt he had to satisfy it, the agreement with him and the woman had been that they only would have sex with a rubber on. He did not put a rubber on, and when she woke up he said he was wearing one.

So shall I say that if Swedes are so quick to anger disregarding a beam in their own eye it is a sad future that I envisage for Sweden? No I won't. I know some Swedes here who are a complete opposite.

Well, I shan't say that all Ukrainians are short sighted mad men, because that would indeed be unbecoming, and I have heard that some of them are perfectly normal people.

The statement is perfectly correct grammatically, but feel free to look past the point.

[Sarmatian]

Ooh, whats this? A fight hoo haz more English skilz?

Grow up.