Interesting Question [Archive] - TheSite.org boards

Sir Cum

12-09-2003, 03:01 PM

You have a couple that have been dating for years. For arguments sake lets say the sex life is fantastic, but out of that area things aren't so rosey, always arguing in front of others, people know they are on the brink of separation etc. However they do always experiment with sex and love every second of it.

Right now they put into action an idea they always had - The girl has her hands cuffed behind her back and a tight gag tied round her mouth. The bloke then basically fucks her from behind in the pussy and in the ass as agreed. He can hear her moaning loudly (or so he thinks she is) and gets on with the deed, blowing his load right deep inside her pounded ass.

He collapses in a heap and a few seconds later unties her only to receive a slap and a crying girlfriend. Turns out he was a bit too hard on her and she was trying to let him know her pain during the act but the gag prevented it.

Now if she then went and cried rape, do you think he would get convicted? Would the fact that everyone says they are always arguining hold against him. Should he have somehow known she was saying stop? Is it his thought they didn't agree upon a get out clause at the start of the shagfest?

Debate! (mass)

TheKingOfGlasgow

12-09-2003, 03:48 PM

I think it's their fault they did not agree on a 'safe' word or gesture. Rape tho, I'm not sure of the technical legalities of such stuff, but I am sure there are laws to prevent this kind of thing. It would also depend on how each put forward their case outside the arena of sex I suppose with regards to the arguing etc. It's a tough one, but are you just using this as an excuse to write dirty stories?

Sir Cum

12-09-2003, 03:55 PM

Nah I just thought this board was a bit dead so i'd give it a kick. It is interesting though as it could be interpretted in many ways.

Good Riddance

12-09-2003, 06:08 PM

She consented to everything that they did, so surely it could't be interpreted as rape. If she is gagged and she constented to be gagged then it isn't his fault so it cannot be called rape at all, surely?!

Slids

12-09-2003, 06:58 PM

I thought it was quite funny...

FireFly85

12-09-2003, 07:20 PM

I personally wouldn't consider it rape, as she has already previously agreed to everything that subsequently went on. The fact he was a little hard on her and hurt her isn't nice, but apart from the pain factor she knew what she was letting herself in for so its not like there would be any emotional trauma. But yeah definitely would consider them both a bit stupid for not thinking of a safe word before hand.

Jowolvo

12-09-2003, 07:47 PM

Hmm well if was that bad she should've tried harder to stop him! I dunno maybe clench so bad that he cant move to stop him and then he'd be like eh? whats goin on and see that she wasn't enjoying it!?

Her fault.... (god bring on jury duty!!!)

Slids

12-09-2003, 10:32 PM

Think when i see my girl this weekend im gunna handcuff her and gag her, haha can't wait

lipsy

13-09-2003, 12:58 AM

i dont think he meant thzt. i think it was more like she 'cried rape' therefore she denies that it was consenting and she wanted to be fucked and said.'eeeuugh he just raped me' and the fact that they have arguments, well ppl might think. oo the didt get on very well and he was a bastard so maybe he did rape her.

:eek2: yup

Good Riddance

14-09-2003, 12:07 PM

I agree it would be hard for him to prove otherwise. But, wouldn't it be hard to handcuff a girl, gag her and then Bum-Rape her while she was fighting against you doing it the whole time? It would be hard enough just to rape some-one, but I have never heard of a girl being bum-raped by just one guy on his own.

LonDoNErcHriS85

14-09-2003, 04:36 PM

hmm no it wasnt rape she consented to sex, but it was a bad experience and both parties should learn from it

Jowolvo

14-09-2003, 06:00 PM

i think you shud post some more of these what if? situations....nice to know the law!

Kermit

14-09-2003, 07:54 PM

It would simply be a case of his word against hers, as there are no independent witnesses to the event. Character references would count a little, but it would not be sufficient to provide a safe conviction, unless concrete proof was supplied. It is, however, illegal to rape a wife, though thsi only changed with a House of Lords decision in 1990.

Its a fuzzy legal area, and it would basically depend on the jury and the judge. Personally I dont think that the man would be convicted, but with the current law allowing defendants names to be revealed to the press it would be sufficient to destroy his reputation, as shown by what happened to Leslie.

Docter Lurve

15-09-2003, 03:09 PM

To me it all seems like a tin of beans....

You have so many then suddenly you get a bad one to that makes you fart you aint goina hold it aginst the beans because you agreed to eat them are you......

NinjaMaster

15-09-2003, 03:25 PM

Isn't buggery illegal anyway? Or has that law been overturned as well?

Good Riddance

15-09-2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by NinjaMaster
Isn't buggery illegal anyway? Or has that law been overturned as well?

Nah, buggery is fine ------- You been missing out! Get out and give it a go!

VinylVicky

15-09-2003, 04:58 PM

no it wasnt rape. she could have lay flat or done something to try and stop him.
The thing is proving he didnt rape her.

NinjaMaster

16-09-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Good Riddance
Nah, buggery is fine ------- You been missing out! Get out and give it a go!

That's alright then. All these years I thought I was breaking the law.

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Docter Lurve
To me it all seems like a tin of beans....

You have so many then suddenly you get a bad one to that makes you fart you aint goina hold it aginst the beans because you agreed to eat them are you......
:lol: Interesting way of putting it.
Definately not rape. People keep saying it would be hard for him to prove he didn't rape her, it would be just as hard for her to prove he did. They seem to be clamping down on all this shit anyway cos there has been quite a few occasions where cases have been kicked out of court because silly little wenches have cried rape. She has consented to this act and so she hasn't been raped, she's just come away with a bit of a sore arse.

VinylVicky

16-09-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by NinjaMaster
That's alright then. All these years I thought I was breaking the law.
You were its only a recent law change me thinks :p

Eul Grepus

16-09-2003, 11:27 AM

Techincally not rape, but would they be able to prove it? As Kermit says, the court case would make a sensation with the press, and the poor bloke would never be able to show his face in public again, without being classed as a rapist.

girl with sharp teeth

16-09-2003, 12:33 PM

although she consented beforehand, consent can be withdrawn at any time. therefore, as she was no longer consenting, she was raped, whether the man knew about it or not.

how on earth can anybody expect her to try and stop him when she's bound and gagged and he's got his full weight on top of her?

it would be very sad if she did accuse him of rape, as he wasn't to know, but that also doesn't stop her feeling the way she would after something like that.

LonDoNErcHriS85

16-09-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
although she consented beforehand, consent can be withdrawn at any time. therefore, as she was no longer consenting, she was raped, whether the man knew about it or not.

how on earth can anybody expect her to try and stop him when she's bound and gagged and he's got his full weight on top of her?

it would be very sad if she did accuse him of rape, as he wasn't to know, but that also doesn't stop her feeling the way she would after something like that.

hmm so if they can withdraw consent at nytime, i find that offensive to the man, because if she said yes and he started almost finished, she mite not mind it but cause she cant be bothered to continue she can claim she was raped last minute if he dont get off her, hmm EVIL

but me being a nice guy, i wouldnt go with a girl if i knew she wasnt fully up for it

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
although she consented beforehand, consent can be withdrawn at any time. therefore, as she was no longer consenting, she was raped, whether the man knew about it or not.

how on earth can anybody expect her to try and stop him when she's bound and gagged and he's got his full weight on top of her?

it would be very sad if she did accuse him of rape, as he wasn't to know, but that also doesn't stop her feeling the way she would after something like that.
To me that's bollocks. She didn't get raped, she got hurt in an act that she consented to. Fair enough she couldn't tell him to stop but that is just as much her fault as his as she agreed to be gagged.

girl with sharp teeth

16-09-2003, 12:49 PM

why the fuck is it evil? if something someone was doing to you started hurting really badly, wouldn't you like to be able to say stop?

you're such a gentleman :rolleyes:

girl with sharp teeth

16-09-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Lickalotapuss
To me that's bollocks. She didn't get raped, she got hurt in an act that she consented to. Fair enough she couldn't tell him to stop but that is just as much her fault as his as she agreed to be gagged.

as she stopped consenting then she was raped. i didn't blame the guy for it if you actually read what i posted.

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
as she stopped consenting then she was raped. i didn't blame the guy for it if you actually read what i posted.
Did she stop consenting though?? Me don't think so. In her own head she had stopped consenting, but she hadn't withdrawn the consent from the guy so as far as the sexual act is concerned it was all done with consent.

girl with sharp teeth

16-09-2003, 01:03 PM

she stopped consenting, she was raped. she was unable to physically or vocally withdraw consent, but that doesn't mean that she continued to consent. it doesn't matter how you dress it up, she still feels the same.

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 01:23 PM

Feels the same? Shes just had bum sex with her BOYFRIEND, yes it hurt her and because she agreed to be gagged and handcuffed she couldn't let her BOYFRIEND know that it was hurting her. She shouldn't in anyway feel dirty because she agreed to the act in the first place all she should be feeling is a sore arse and probably difficulty sitting down for a week.

The only reason I can see that she would ever grass on her boyfriend is after an argument which in this situation sounds quite frequently and she wants to piss the BF off and not cos she feels like she has been raped.

girl with sharp teeth

16-09-2003, 01:28 PM

i don't know why you've bothered to emphasise the word boyfriend. don't you know that over 70% of rapes are comitted by someone the victim knows?

it doesn't matter who it was or whether they meant it, she will feel like she's been raped.

Eul Grepus

16-09-2003, 01:32 PM

i disagree... infact, i completely disagree. she will feel like she tried something kinky and it went a bit in the shape of a pear. Are you saying that if you tied and gagged a man, and was riding away on him, you would be able to tell if the muffled moans were actually him trying to tell you to stop. Would he feel raped? i doubt it

girl with sharp teeth

16-09-2003, 01:35 PM

maybe, maybe not.

but if you were doing him in the arse, him bound and gagged and desperately trying to stop you but you not realising, i think he might feel rather differently.

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
maybe, maybe not.

but if you were doing him in the arse, him bound and gagged and desperately trying to stop you but you not realising, i think he might feel rather differently.
She agreed to be banged up the arse.
In the example Eul Grepus give, you could be bouncing on his nob and he could be in lots of pain from it, he hasn't been raped, its a condsented sexual act gone wrong. There is no victim, you have a girl with a sore arse, and a lad with an embarrased guilty conciounce (sp?)

Eul Grepus

16-09-2003, 01:41 PM

if you consent to try something dangerous, you have to learn to take the good with the bad if it goes wrong

Eul Grepus

16-09-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Lickalotapuss
(sp?)

concience :cool:

candy

16-09-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Eul Grepus
concience :cool:

conscience :p

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Eul Grepus
concience :cool:
:) I hope candy's right, you won't be so :cool: then :p

Eul Grepus

16-09-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by candy
conscience :p

typo :p

i did mean conscience

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Eul Grepus
typo :p

i did mean conscience
:lol:

Knayles

16-09-2003, 01:59 PM

No-one meant conscious then?

Lickalotapuss

16-09-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Knayles
No-one meant conscious then?
:no:
Starting to be like an english lesson.
You don't have a guilty concious, it is a guilty conscience.
*and yes I scrolled down to spell it correctly this time :)

corbie7

16-09-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Eul Grepus
if you consent to try something dangerous, you have to learn to take the good with the bad if it goes wrong

Erm, usually if you consent to something dangerous, you also arrange to have an out. The mistake here was that the Boyfriend didn't do everything he should have. Like someone said before, they should have had a safe word or a sfe gesture or some way to mkae sure that everything was fine, especially since they'd never done anything like this before.

He also should have checked with her during the act. And he ought to apologize.

Just cuz they're dating doesn't mean she can't object to what he's doing.

And just because you said you'd go bugee jumping doesn't mean you can't change your mind, or at least ask for a decent, secure harness.

lisa simpson's saxophone

16-09-2003, 07:44 PM

When she agreed to be tied up and gagged, she knew that she wouldn't be able to let him know if she wanted to stop. The whole thing depended on trust. If she wasn't in a trusting relationship then she shouldn't have tried it.

GWST I see what you're saying about her withdrawing her consent, but as he didn't know she'd stopped consenting, he didn't know he was doing it against her will and therefore wouldn't even knew he was raping her.

It's a tricky one :chin:

SuzyCreamcheese

16-09-2003, 08:24 PM

I think he had a duty to be careful, It might not be rape, but I think id feel pretty abused and its a chuckable offence at the very least.

lisa simpson's saxophone

16-09-2003, 08:57 PM

I guess it depends what they agreed to beforehand. She might have said she wanted him to do it hard and fast, completely take over and stuff. But like Kermit said, it's her word against his.

corbie - surely it's up to her to arrange a 'safe' word just as much as it is to him? But I do agree with you, he should have been more careful. Problem is, the relationship Sir Cum described is a very physical one, not necessarily a loving one.

It's just a weird situation, as the woman basically wanted to be dominated but maybe the lack of communication meant they had different ideas about what they were agreeing to. That's why I think you need to trust each other completely before getting into a situation like this.

Oops, started talking about them like they're real people. Oh well - I bet it's happened somewhere.

WD1

29-09-2003, 03:49 PM

This thread might be slightly dead, but if anyone's interested...

for the scenario to be rape, the boyfriend must have intended to rape his girlfriend, i.e. have sex with her without her consent, or at least must have been reckless about whether she was consenting or not. So, here, since a) he truly believed that she was consenting, and he clearly believed that to be true when the 'arrangement' was set up, it would be very very hard to call this rape within the law.

Of course the original question was about who would be believed ... whether their stormy relationship would be taken into account or not. I think it would, and a truly vindictive girlfriend (or a girlfriend who was seriously affected by the experience) could make a very good case - all based on her lying about what happened leading up to the act of course - and the boyfriend would be in serious trouble.

So - legally I don't think that it would be rape, but the chances of a conviction would be reasonably high, and certainly higher than if they were a loving couple who had had a row and he had turned on her and forced her to have sex. That would be harder to prove in court, unless she fought really hard and had bruises (and he had wounds) to show for it.

Sorry for a very boring legal-ese email ... if you're as sad as me clickhere (http://www.rapecrisis.co.uk/police_reporting4.htm) for the website I got my definition from (page is from an organisation that helps women who have been the victim of rape, the Rape Crisis Federation)

End boring post

Martin_Bashir

14-02-2005, 07:19 PM

Sir Cum; Interesting one, would say its both (lack of planning or thought on her part, lack of thinking and concern on his part) their own fault for not having some kind of 'safe' signal, as for the legality i dont know but it shouldnt even get to that point.

tbh, with this being such a common fantasy (its my biggest one for sure :naughty: ) im not surprised that its been bought up...nor am i surprised that you are the one to bring it up :p . I bet you got amazing marks in English at school, you paint such vivid pictures with such 'descriptive' forms :naughty: :lol: :thumb:

I can imagine this dillemma being more widespread than people may think, and i think this fantasy/scenario is far more widespread than people may think