sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
So, you find is suspious that two women have similiar stories of being assaulted by teh same man....
But you don't find it at all strange that the condom split one day when the first woman said no to having sex... and that he specifically didn't wear a condom another time, and didn't tell her?
Seriously?
I guess those 3 women who all "passed out" when the same guy got them a drink are in a grand conspiracy against him.
|
Also, you're not really putting the condom splitting thing on him, right? I mean sex with a broken condom is just as pleasureble as sex with an intact condom. What could he gain from that? Plus condoms break sometimes. Does it sound that far fetched?
As for the second one, where eactly did it say the he didn't tell her? It says she said "No sex without condoms". The had sex with a condom, and then sex without a condom the following morning. It doesn't say that he decieved her (they most likely just woke up, decided to have some morning sex, and forgot all about the condom), and the woman had no problem going out and buying the guy breakfast, so she obviosuly wasn't too upset abot the "rape" at that time.
Then those girls met and decided to sue the guy by taking advantage of Swedish laws, and to bring attention to themselves.
Honestly, I see no rapes having taken place, and your comparison reminds me of when homophobes compare homosexuality to padophilia. Totally not the same thing amigo.
|
Sex without consent is where they say so. And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.
As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims.
|
I have no words for this. I'm not going to continue this argument. I've already presented all the evidence I could (which does not support your claims), yet you choose to ignore them and maintain your (baseless) view that this guy broke a condom on purpuse (even thougs there wouldn't have been any point in that, unless he wanted to get her pregnant or infect her with an STD, as he still wouldn't have had the same pleasure as not using a condom) and that if a woman has sex with a guy and they forget to use a condom it's rape and the guy should pay.
Appearently you lack reason and common sense and like to go by false assumptions, which you don't let go even after they were proven wrong. I can understand now why people hate radical feminists, and I hope I never meet one in real life.
|
Actually, if you break a condom enough it comes off.. and is basically like not using a condom.
Point 1
It's not radical feminism. It's common sense.
If someone says "I want to have sex, but only if you use a condom" and you don't use a condom or intentionall break a condom for more pleasure you are commiting rape.
You are specifically committing an act that not only was not consented too... you were specifically told was out of bounds.
You keep trying to duck this point... becase you know your wrong.
Point 2
The fact that a conviently lucky broken condom, was followed 3 days later by the non-use of a condom even when it was told that was needed is definitly a pattern that involved looking into.
Furthermore he was fine with standing trial, but has suddenly changed his mind... because maybe he realizes he's actually guilty?
