It's an unwilling fuck with a condom rape?

[rawfuckr]

I keep meeting these guys in the dark room. After all the dance they go for your hole and wrap it up and I instantly say "no condoms!"

The problem now starts. Many of these will use the darkness and confusion of the place to fuck you anyway with a rubber. They  play the game you won't notice who they are and try to fuck you anyway with condoms. I try to do my best to keep track but sometimes, actually often, i find then fucking my hole and draining previous cum with their rubbers. 

I feel awful about this as this is something I didn't consent to, even after I told then no. When confronted most of them claim higher moral ground and they are doing the right thing.

Am I crazy to think this is close to being molested/rape? It feels awful that someone it willingly going for it after a big fat no. 

 

 

[Aerach]

You’re not crazy - as the saying goes, “no” means “no.” The fact that they wore a condom is irrelevant. The fact that you were actively seeking sex from various strangers is irrelevant. They did not have your consent. 
 

The type of person who is unwilling to take “no” for an answer, who takes what they want with no regard for the feelings of others, is quite simply loathsome. And those who claim moral superiority in doing so are the worst type of hypocrites, deserving only scorn. Don’t let them make you feel bad. 

[onlyraw]

While I don’t think you would have luck with most juries  claiming “rape” you are right that it is sex after you said no

and while using a condom may be “right” for the top and they may think they are doing you a favor, it is just as wrong as a bottom who says no to bareback and the top goes ahead and fucks raw anyway  (even if THAT  story line is in a lot of hot stories on this site)

and unless you are having Dom/sub sex with someone you know and have agreed that “no” does not mean no (and you have agreed to a different safe word)   The rules are now “no means no” no matter what you are saying no to

[Ieatcumholes]

While I generally agree with the sentiment that something was forced on you that you didn't want, I have to express what may be an unpopular opinion. Anonymous sex, whether in a dark room, back room, woods, ass down/face up, blindfolded, etc., kinda by definition lacks accountability. In those situations, the top can do whatever they want to a bottom, regardless of the bottom's wishes, whether or not what is done is morally right considering the bottom's wishes.

If I come across a guy in an anonymous situation and in a position that screams, "FUCK ME!", as the top >> I << get to choose how to fuck that guy. If I, as the top, choose to wear a condom (probably to protect myself more than it is to protect someone I don't know, don't care about and likely has some STI cause he obviously lets anybody fuck him, regardless of what I might say), oh well! And the same is true in the opposite situation where the bottom wants condoms used, is in an anonymous situation and is bred by a top. (>> I << would never willingly use a condom to fuck! I'm playing Devil's Advocate here! 🤪) 

Whether a bottom only wants to get fucked raw or only with a condom, then that entails a conversation, agreement beforehand and not an anonymous scene.... So, while I agree something was forced upon you that you didn't want, I have Judge Judy (American TV Court show judge) in my ear talking about "proximate cause" - if you hadn't put yourself in a position to be taken advantage of, you wouldn't have been taken advantage of and had an experience you didn't want.... Case dismissed!

And I would give the same reply to a top who blindfolded himself, laid on his back with a condom-covered erection and multiple bottoms came through and rode his cock for the same amount of time each until the top came. If one of those bottoms sabotaged the condom so that he was effectively fucking raw, oh well! He relinquished the control to make sure the sex happened how he wanted it to happen. So he can't then complain after the fact.

Now, if the top and bottom had discussed condom use beforehand, then the top came over and forced himself onto and into the bottom raw and bred him, THAT would be rape.

[Guest]

On 6/30/2022 at 1:09 AM, rawfuckr said:

Am I crazy to think this is close to being molested/rape?

Seems a bit like an overstatement but you're not crazy. In the end I think a 'no harm, no foul-rule' applies here. And there's no real harm done here, or do you disagree?

If you have the financial means and are Catholic or from another religious persuasion that forbids condoms and contraceptives perhaps you might argue that they forced you to commit a sin and your freedom of religion was trespassed upon.
But then again, those religions usually forbid homosexuality altogether. 😉 

 

On 6/30/2022 at 1:09 AM, rawfuckr said:

It feels awful that someone it willingly going for it after a big fat no. 

I sympathise but the best thing you can do is find other cruising spots and people into barebacking.
Hope it works out.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Guest

[BootmanLA]

Generally, I'm of the "If what's done violates the terms of consent that were given, then it's non-consensual sex, which is rape" opinion. But this one (like it has for others) gives me some pause, and it took a while to figure out why.

Also generally speaking, we impose terms of consent to protect ourselves from something we don't want. Receptive partners (whether men bottoming, or women getting fucked) might insist on a condom to prevent (some) diseases or pregnancy (in the case of the woman). The receptive partner might insist on the insertive partner pulling out before orgasm for the same reason(s). A woman might say "no anal" (or conversely, "no vaginal") sex to avoid a type of sex she doesn't want to risk.

But while I'm not sure risk is necessary for the terms of consent to be valid - they may not be terms explicitly to protect us from something - that's their general purpose in most cases. What came to mind as an example was this: suppose the receptive partner only wants bareback sex, including the insertive person orgasming while inside. If the insertive partner pulls out before orgasm, does that violate the consent terms? Or if, for whatever reason, he just can't get to orgasm?

I don't think even the strictest concept of terms of consent cover "does not complete the job to my satisfaction" as a violation amounting to rape.

So one way to view it might be: if the action taken introduces an element that wasn't agreed to (as opposed to failing to deliver one that was), then maybe that's rape. But even still, it's hard to see condom-covered penetration (when the bottom is willing to get penetrated) as rape. Maybe it is - possibly a philosophical definition that's above my pay grade - but it just doesn't "feel", instinctively, like the same sort of violation as the reverse.

And I think, as others may have suggested, that the solution may simply require that a person only have sex in conditions that allow him to ensure that no one enters him with a condom. That, unfortunately, might eliminate dark rooms for the most part.