FabSwingers.com mobile

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Swinging Support and Advice

Controversial post

Jump to newest
 

By *he Black Experience OP   Man
22 weeks ago

Buckingham

A friend of mine is now pregnant, she's not that thrilled but keeping the baby.

We had a discussion about it and she's said, the guy although at the time they were in a relationship ( split up now) they had consensual sex. The issue is he came inside of her, knowing she wasn't on any form of protection and without consent. Apparently it was always the norm for them to use condoms or him to pull out. This time he stayed in.

She said she felt violated, I think it's very strange sort of sexual assault. What are your thoughts?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oe n JayCouple
22 weeks ago

Surrey

If it was without consent then it's assault.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust a little bit moreWoman
22 weeks ago

kendal

Anything done without consent,Is SA!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imbob85Man
22 weeks ago

inverness

Wrong to do it with out consent, but if you are using the pull out method you are inviting risk

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
22 weeks ago

Leeds

You can get pregnant with precum. Very unsafe method of contraception.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iltsTSgirlTV/TS
22 weeks ago

Chichester

Sounds like two immature adults fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
22 weeks ago

Leeds


" A friend of mine is now pregnant, she's not that thrilled but keeping the baby.

"

Imagine knowing your mother is "not that thrilled" about having you. Will the dad be involved with the child ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *owhambamMan
22 weeks ago

clacton


" A friend of mine is now pregnant, she's not that thrilled but keeping the baby.

We had a discussion about it and she's said, the guy although at the time they were in a relationship ( split up now) they had consensual sex. The issue is he came inside of her, knowing she wasn't on any form of protection and without consent. Apparently it was always the norm for them to use condoms or him to pull out. This time he stayed in.

She said she felt violated, I think it's very strange sort of sexual assault. What are your thoughts?"

I think you should tell your friend to speak to lawyers, to find out if by law it is classed as consensual or not!

Then just support her best you can.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
22 weeks ago

Leeds

It is non consensual but I would imagine it is very hard to prove.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *herrybakewellCouple
22 weeks ago

Staffordshire

Id maybe sit that friend down at some point and explain how stupid the pull out method is.

A man doesn't even need to ejaculate, to reproduce.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he Silver FuxMan
22 weeks ago

Uttoxeter


"Id maybe sit that friend down at some point and explain how stupid the pull out method is.

A man doesn't even need to ejaculate, to reproduce. "

Yup - can’t call a failure of the ‘pull-out’ non-consensual or that the guy came in her - they literally fucked about and found out. There is the morning after pill but requires the guy to admit immediately that he didn’t pull out in time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

22 weeks ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"Id maybe sit that friend down at some point and explain how stupid the pull out method is.

A man doesn't even need to ejaculate, to reproduce.

Yup - can’t call a failure of the ‘pull-out’ non-consensual or that the guy came in her - they literally fucked about and found out. There is the morning after pill but requires the guy to admit immediately that he didn’t pull out in time. "

Sounds like a can of worms to me.

If he knowingly did it without consent (not sure how this would be proved given they were having unprotected sex in the first place which apparently was consented to) then he's a dick and an idiot.

But she's not the smartest either. They ran the risk of her getting pregnant the second they had sex without contraception. And it's usually pretty obvious when a guy comes inside you, either through their reactions or the mess. The morning after pill was always an option.

I have no advice. Just the above thoughts. 🤷‍♂️

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ommenhimCouple
22 weeks ago

wigan


"If it was without consent then it's assault. "

So she takes part in physical stimulation of him that ultimately leads to his involuntary action as a result of that stimulation… and he’s assaulted her?? What was she expecting to happen? As another reply said unprotected sex is just that… unprotected and could produce the same result regardless of whether he pulled out or not.

Cumming is involuntary and can happen without a great deal of warning… her part in this was naive at best but to suggest assault?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mileyculturebelfastMan
22 weeks ago

belfast


"If it was without consent then it's assault.

So she takes part in physical stimulation of him that ultimately leads to his involuntary action as a result of that stimulation… and he’s assaulted her?? What was she expecting to happen? As another reply said unprotected sex is just that… unprotected and could produce the same result regardless of whether he pulled out or not.

Cumming is involuntary and can happen without a great deal of warning… her part in this was naive at best but to suggest assault? "

That's my thinking.

Too many people claiming sexual assault these days. It takes away from real sexual assault issues.

Would have been different if he'd worn a condom but removed it before cumming.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *end1Man
22 weeks ago

southend on sea

Play silly games win silly prizes!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mileyculturebelfastMan
22 weeks ago

belfast


"Play silly games win silly prizes!"

Useful.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aramelChocolatecoupleCouple
22 weeks ago

Surrey

I don't think she could prove any ill intent. He could have cum early and was always planning to pull out. The law relates to someone removing a condom without the other party knowing. This situation would never stand up in Court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unner6969Man
22 weeks ago

Kings Lynn

Pulling out isn’t assured, unprotected sex was consensual. She could have got the ‘morning after’ pill (but that doesn’t always work).

Playing “Vatican Roulette” is unwise, as she/he found out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ustforfun1759Couple
22 weeks ago

IRVINE

Just pure silly using the pull out method can still get pregnant doing so.your friend and her ex definitely need a good talk too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
22 weeks ago

Central

You don't need penile penetration to get pregnant so they were both ignorant and stupid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
22 weeks ago

Didsbury


" A friend of mine is now pregnant, she's not that thrilled but keeping the baby.

Imagine knowing your mother is "not that thrilled" about having you. Will the dad be involved with the child ?"

I’m sure plenty of married couples live this same thing every day. The alternative would be repressing her feelings and not telling anyone. How would that help the child? A child who doesn’t need to know in either case.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod

22 weeks ago

East Sussex

I can understand a woman being unhappy about a pregnancy, it's a big thing to come to terms with and a shocking way to discover just how easy it is to conceive.

I hope it works out for all three of them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple
22 weeks ago

Leicestershire

If she consented to unprotected sex then that's how babies are made...

If she did not consent to unprotected sex then that's possible sexual assault or the r word I cant post.

If she is trying to claim, as I think she is, that she consented to unprotected sex but didn't consented to him cumming inside her and she made that lack of consent clear then it's sexual assault, but proving it will be something else entirely and she was as irresponsible as him in the first place!

If she didn't make the lack of consent clear during that occasion of intercourse I don't understand what she is moaning about.

It strikes me that she was as irresponsible as him to be honest and if she wants to report it she needs to know that the accusation alone could very well ruin the life of her babies father.

Not really an ideal start to co-parenting when they both seemed to agree to unprotected sex in the first place.

Unless of course she intends to cut the father out of the babies life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he Black Experience OP   Man
22 weeks ago

Buckingham

My thoughts exactly, there's no way in high heaven she can prove assault si don't thinks she's gonna try.

She's blocked him out of her life and is gonna raise and love the baby.

They were both incredibly silly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *l69Woman
22 weeks ago

London

Silly to be fair she also could of taken morning after pill

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *outhstaffscoupleCouple
22 weeks ago

cannock


"Sounds like two immature adults fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences "

This is spot on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abriellajackCouple
22 weeks ago

Newport

This is not sexual assault. It's not the same as when a guy is told to wear a condom and discretely removes it. That's an offence.

It's not a sexual assault because he 'normally pulls out' so she thought he would on this occasion. This is simply a reckless man and woman who are now facing the consequences of their reckless behavior but she's trying to absolve herself herself of any blame or responsibility by taking the victim route.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"My thoughts exactly, there's no way in high heaven she can prove assault si don't thinks she's gonna try.

She's blocked him out of her life and is gonna raise and love the baby.

They were both incredibly silly"

Made-up story for forum clout... zzzzzzzz

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olinOfBathMan
22 weeks ago

Corsham

They didn't have consensual sex. He knew in advance that she didn't want him to ejaculate inside her during unprotected sex. She didn't want what he was doing and he knew that.

Don't bother arguing how this shouldn't or should be regarded. Lay opinions aren't relevant.

Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe.

Under our failing legal system, he'll probably get away with it. He should serve several years of hard time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issmorganWoman
22 weeks ago

Calderdale innit


"Sounds like two immature adults fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences "

This, she was always taking a risk using this method.

As others said she could have got the morning after pill, or used some other contraception if they didn't wanna use condoms.

It's never been easier to not get pregnant, if you don't want to, in this day and age.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esiGalGuy123Man
22 weeks ago

Greater Manchester


"You can get pregnant with precum. Very unsafe method of contraception.

"

Yes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss KinkWoman
22 weeks ago

Up North


"If she consented to unprotected sex then that's how babies are made...

If she did not consent to unprotected sex then that's possible sexual assault or the r word I cant post.

If she is trying to claim, as I think she is, that she consented to unprotected sex but didn't consented to him cumming inside her and she made that lack of consent clear then it's sexual assault, but proving it will be something else entirely and she was as irresponsible as him in the first place!

If she didn't make the lack of consent clear during that occasion of intercourse I don't understand what she is moaning about.

It strikes me that she was as irresponsible as him to be honest and if she wants to report it she needs to know that the accusation alone could very well ruin the life of her babies father.

Not really an ideal start to co-parenting when they both seemed to agree to unprotected sex in the first place.

Unless of course she intends to cut the father out of the babies life.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"If it was without consent then it's assault. "

This is true. It is classed as SA.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"They didn't have consensual sex. He knew in advance that she didn't want him to ejaculate inside her during unprotected sex. She didn't want what he was doing and he knew that.

Don't bother arguing how this shouldn't or should be regarded. Lay opinions aren't relevant.

Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe.

Under our failing legal system, he'll probably get away with it. He should serve several years of hard time."

I really appreciate this stance. Regardless, he knew he was doing something she didn't want him to do. That is wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"My thoughts exactly, there's no way in high heaven she can prove assault si don't thinks she's gonna try.

She's blocked him out of her life and is gonna raise and love the baby.

They were both incredibly silly

Made-up story for forum clout... zzzzzzzz"

This stuff does happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"This is not sexual assault. It's not the same as when a guy is told to wear a condom and discretely removes it. That's an offence.

It's not a sexual assault because he 'normally pulls out' so she thought he would on this occasion. This is simply a reckless man and woman who are now facing the consequences of their reckless behavior but she's trying to absolve herself herself of any blame or responsibility by taking the victim route."

This is incorrect. Trust me. Regardless of the thoughts about responsibilities regarding contraception and judgement about guilt ect.

If a man ejaculates inside a woman without consent, it is SA. You just have to ask the police. They will confirm this.

I understand the comments about pre cum, however the ejaculation inside, is a deliberate act.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *armandwet50Couple
22 weeks ago

Out of UK


"Sounds like two immature adults fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences "

This

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eandmrsjones69Couple
22 weeks ago

Middle England

This is an article based on a similar situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

That said I think there are a few differences. But even so it's very difficult to prove. The worrying aspect is the point "this time he stayed in".

On a personal level it's a minefield and would never want to be in that situation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rgoodnbadMan
22 weeks ago

greenock


"They didn't have consensual sex. He knew in advance that she didn't want him to ejaculate inside her during unprotected sex. She didn't want what he was doing and he knew that.

Don't bother arguing how this shouldn't or should be regarded. Lay opinions aren't relevant.

Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe.

Under our failing legal system, he'll probably get away with it. He should serve several years of hard time."

"Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe."

Not sure why you included this, as it was consensual penetrative sex.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
22 weeks ago

couple, us we him her.

They both consented to unprotected sexual intercourse, an act designed by nature for the purpose of reproduction cumming inside her or not the chance's of pregnancy are pretty high, for her now to cry foul after she knowingly had unprotected sex is kinda shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I feel sorry for the kid, sounds like they are both going to be shitty parents.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eandmrsjones69Couple
22 weeks ago

Middle England


""Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe."

Not sure why you included this, as it was consensual penetrative sex."

Their arrangement (contract if you will) was that he would not ejaculate inside her. If they had sex every week and he always withdrew, no issue. Not even if she got pregnant. The issue is he broke their agreement; irrespective of whether she got pregnant or not.

So yes he had consent to have sex but no consent to ejaculate inside her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"This is an article based on a similar situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

That said I think there are a few differences. But even so it's very difficult to prove. The worrying aspect is the point "this time he stayed in".

On a personal level it's a minefield and would never want to be in that situation.

"

You're right, it's difficult to prove but it doesn't take away from the fact that the police take it seriously.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


""Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe."

Not sure why you included this, as it was consensual penetrative sex.

Their arrangement (contract if you will) was that he would not ejaculate inside her. If they had sex every week and he always withdrew, no issue. Not even if she got pregnant. The issue is he broke their agreement; irrespective of whether she got pregnant or not.

So yes he had consent to have sex but no consent to ejaculate inside her. "

Exactly and that is why it's considered SA.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
22 weeks ago


"They didn't have consensual sex. He knew in advance that she didn't want him to ejaculate inside her during unprotected sex. She didn't want what he was doing and he knew that.

Don't bother arguing how this shouldn't or should be regarded. Lay opinions aren't relevant.

Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe.

Under our failing legal system, he'll probably get away with it. He should serve several years of hard time.

"Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe."

Not sure why you included this, as it was consensual penetrative sex."

Because it is. Like I said ask the police. I just hope that men take this sort of example seriously. This takes two but ultimately it's a man who impregnates the woman. So there are the lessons, make sure you have explicit permission/consent and don't cum inside a woman if you have no interest in becoming a parent. It's really quite simple.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olinOfBathMan
22 weeks ago

Corsham

Absolutely disgusted by attempts to downplay the seriousness of his crime.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reasyontheeyesMan
22 weeks ago

out in the sticks..

If you consent to sexual intercourse with a condom and he doesnt use one thats a police matter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eandmrsjones69Couple
22 weeks ago

Middle England

[Removed by poster at 01/03/25 18:20:31]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unnerbenMan
22 weeks ago

Dublin / Cork

I am aware of a very similar investigation in Ireland . A file was sent to the DPP , the equivalent of the CPS. It came back no prosecution . The sex was consensual . Ejaculating is part of the act of sex . If she knew he wasn’t wearing a condom and she consented to the sex then she should was also aware of the risks involved as ejaculation forms part of sex.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eandmrsjones69Couple
21 weeks ago

Middle England


"I am aware of a very similar investigation in Ireland . A file was sent to the DPP , the equivalent of the CPS. It came back no prosecution . The sex was consensual . Ejaculating is part of the act of sex . If she knew he wasn’t wearing a condom and she consented to the sex then she should was also aware of the risks involved as ejaculation forms part of sex. "

That's the whole point; it is a 'part' of it and she said she didn't want/consent to that part!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unnerbenMan
21 weeks ago

Dublin / Cork


"I am aware of a very similar investigation in Ireland . A file was sent to the DPP , the equivalent of the CPS. It came back no prosecution . The sex was consensual . Ejaculating is part of the act of sex . If she knew he wasn’t wearing a condom and she consented to the sex then she should was also aware of the risks involved as ejaculation forms part of sex.

That's the whole point; it is a 'part' of it and she said she didn't want/consent to that part!"

Ejaculating is a fundamental part of sex . If you agree to Sex , you are therefore agreeing to the man ejaculating. Now I’m not saying he was right for doing it if they are agreed that he was to pull out but I agree why there was no prosecution in the circumstances of the case I said

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *upanovaMan
21 weeks ago

Sheffield

An interesting post. The way is see it she consented to sex, which means ejaculation as that is part of sex. Both have been foolish though. They should have used a condom, I also think he should have asked if he could come in her, it is a simple question even in the heat of the moment. Time to deal with the consequences and the CMS! Good luck to them both.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aven3Man
21 weeks ago

Stoford


"Sounds like two immature adults fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences "

Tend to agree.After all,there is the morning after pill,and she knew he had cum in her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
21 weeks ago

Cheltenham

She was consensually having unprotected sex and she is surprised and upset that biology did its thing?

No sympathy for either of them although I do feel for the child.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
21 weeks ago


"Sounds like two immature adults fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences

Tend to agree.After all,there is the morning after pill,and she knew he had cum in her."

This

I can only assume they'd both agreed to unprotected consensual sex with the caveat that he'd pull put and not cum in her?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellinever70Woman
21 weeks ago

Ayrshire

I can't see how this could be considered a crime

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ommenhimCouple
21 weeks ago

wigan


"They didn't have consensual sex. He knew in advance that she didn't want him to ejaculate inside her during unprotected sex. She didn't want what he was doing and he knew that.

Don't bother arguing how this shouldn't or should be regarded. Lay opinions aren't relevant.

Penetrative sex without consent is r*pe. Not sexual assault, r*pe.

Under our failing legal system, he'll probably get away with it. He should serve several years of hard time."

He could never guarantee that he would not cum inside her. She was being unreasonable to consent to penetrative sex without understanding the potential outcome. Imagine if he did not consent to her having an orgasm… which I’m pretty sure he didn’t explicitly consent to… though she went ahead regardless and climaxed.. should he too feel violated?, has he been assaulted?

I know I’m offering nonsense comparisons… because this is indeed nonsense!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entlemanJim28Man
21 weeks ago

the Shires

If the condition of having unprotected sex was he would pull out, but KNOWINGLY didn’t, then it’s the “R” word. Would be difficult to prove that intent though. R is notoriously difficult to prosecute and get a conviction for because usually there are only the two people there. However, police will always investigate, and can also help the victim with getting support from agencies and organisations such as ISVA’s (independent sexual violence advocates).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lix CoxMan
21 weeks ago

CF39


"If it was without consent then it's assault. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *.luke7Man
21 weeks ago

-

This hurt my head reading this.

How tf did this part of the conversation come up. As if she’s thought about lawyering up.

So if she has had an orgasm while having sex, that he did not voice consent too, that is a SA?

Consensual unprotected sex means exactly that. Sex does involve ejaculation.

Had it been discussed he was to not cum in her, then that is a different story.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *FF23Man
21 weeks ago

London

It’s a hard one to gauge. At the end of the day though, as has been said numerous times already, you don’t need to fully ejaculate to get someone pregnant. If an adult decides to have unprotected sex then they are aware of the risks involved. It’s kinda unfair to blame an individual. If you go bareback then it’s up to the women whether she wants to risk a pregnancy or not and if no other precautions are taken then I would of thought the morning after pill would be a no brainer. If you don’t want the risk, then bag it up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddManMan
21 weeks ago

teddington

What does she mean without consent? They were in a relationship and having sex, did he force her ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *luttTV/TS
21 weeks ago

Duns


"This is an article based on a similar situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457

That said I think there are a few differences. But even so it's very difficult to prove. The worrying aspect is the point "this time he stayed in".

On a personal level it's a minefield and would never want to be in that situation.

"

Seems like a crucial difference here is “Shortly after penetration - and without giving the woman "any chance to object" - the man had said he would be "coming inside her" and had added "I'll do it if I want".”

It seems much easier to prove intent if you declare it. With the situation the OP is describing, both legally and - IMO morally - is whether or not you can *accidentally* ejaculate inside someone, which seems a lot less clear-cut. There is then the counter-point of how *hard* he tried not to ejaculate, and how much risk he took with how “close” he would let himself get.

As others have said, it’s a minefield (unlike “stealthing”, which is extremely clear-cut).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top