Is it rape if a girl tells you not to cum in her mouth but you do it anyway?

[Anonymous]

[Prettygurl12]

Consent can be withdrawn at any time during a sexual encounter. "Rape" seems like a bit extreme for this type of situation, but yeah, I suppose it is. It's a nonconsentual encounter, technically. Presumably she consented to the oral sex but did not consent to the ejaculation.

I guess an extremely savy attorney could maybe make a case for it being rape.

This is an interesting question and I (a cop who takes a lot of sexual assault reports) would have a hell of a time trying to decide what crime to put it as. This specific instance isn't discussed in the code section.

I guess it'd just be assault - not necessarily sexual assault, seeing as the Georgia (where I live) code section does not include the mouth to be an "intimate area" when determining sexual offenses. And even then, not even that since I don't know that ejaculation equals "violent injury" so much as it equals a disgusting inconvenience. Presumably the male isn't forcing the oral sex to occur and we'd purely be debating the unwanted ejaculation.

I've never had a case like that. It'd certainly be an interesting (and horribly embarrassing) situation to ask my (male) supervisor about should I ever be debating what offense to put it as.

[Asker]

Thank you for your detailed answer. I also appreciate your service for the USA.

[Ozanne]

It's called sexual assault, and as @Prettygurl12 mentioned, even if you are having sex, if [a woman] says no or tells their partner to stop at any time, anything [a guy] does thereafter is not consent, and since ejaculating is a sexual act, a guy who does this puts himself in a position to be prosecuted if the girl chooses to file a complaint.

[OlderAndWiser]

Welcome back, my friend!

[OlderAndWiser]

She consents to giving you oral sex but not to you cumming in her mouth and you do it anyway. It probably does meet the definition for a sexual assault but I don't know any prosecutor who would pursue charges in such a situation. Not many juries would convict a guy under such circumstances.

[Anonymous]

It's not rape, obviously. But it is also different that cumming in her vagina when she said no because when it's in her vagina, he is the one who is in full control, whereas when it's in her mouth she is the one who is in control.

[KimmyB]

It’s not very nice but no, that’s not what rape is!!! :oP

[mélancolie]

no... how the fuck is that rape? lmao

rape is only non con sex (or bj/fingers in certain countries)

[allison368]

If she lets him put it in her mouth how can she him expect that he will not do that?

[SarahP080102]

No. She should be anticipating an accidental early release

[Baseball21]

I don't know a guy should be able to pull out before he cums most men can control it and know when they are about to cum

[Wise4myage]

I think it falls under a gray area, and it could be prosecuted as sexual assault, but not rape.

[joeldalton]

It’s a dick move, but not rape.

[MountAverage]

It's a type of rape, yes.

[Anonymous]

Probably not rape but it’s definitely an asshole move.

[Anonymous]

Including this scenario in the definition of "rape" is just another example of how feminists are making a joke of rape and cheapening the experience of true victims of actual rape.