Messed Up with a Girl. Help Needed

Now that’s eggshell territory.

Money shots are money shots, but you misuse the wrong season, holiday, occasion dish towel its gonna rain hell.

It just isn’t worth it.

1 Like

Y’all are worrying about which dish towel to bust in - this is precisely why I use notebook paper, college ruled of course

4 Likes

I did not ejaculate on Purpose. We both had too many drinks inside us that impaired my judgment .
I texted her and this is how the conversation went :-
Me - hey just wanted to let you know that no matter what happens i am there and i will support you :slight_smile:
Her - Hi :slight_smile: Thankyou . I hope everything will be fine.
Me - How are you feeling now ? And how is your mom and grandma ? They must be so happy to see you .
Her - Thankyou , we are very happy to finally meet each other :slight_smile:
Me - very nice :slight_smile:
Conversation ended
Next day evening i texted saying Are you free right now ? Can i call you ?
Then i gave her a call
She didnt pick up nor replied
So i am still confused what is on her mind . She replied before but she didn’t say anything after missing my call its been 1 day .

So, um, I missed a little bit over the weekend, huh? Just to get back to a few things real quick:

I realize people say that, but I haven’t seen statistics that it’s accurate.

Yes. Everything is open to being joked about. Prison rape, dead babies, 9/11, whatever. Also, poundmeintheass prison is a movie reference.

I agree that birth control sabotage, which is a form of what’s called “reproductive coersion”, should be illegal whether it’s a man or woman doing it. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and many legal experts also think so. In the US at least, it’s a tricky issue because it’s closely tied to abortion rights, which are a whole other can of worms to deal with.

In the UK. This story literally replicates the OP’s situation: Sex consent could still lead to rape charge, judges say - BBC News

"[…] The judges have ordered prosecutors to review their decision.

Prosecutors had decided not to charge him as it would be “impossible to prove” that the man’s decision was not “spontaneous” and “made at the point of ejaculation”
[…]
She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation. (He) knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him.

[…] She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based.

Accordingly her consent was negated.

Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina.

In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape."

“I did not drive into that bicyclist on purpose. We both had too many drinks inside us that impaired my judgment.”

Not to give reveal all the tricks up our collective sleeve, but Mods/Admins do not have access to your street address, no.

Women hate this. My wife does anyways. It may be you eager to have a conversation, but to them it looks like a trap.

Its like the text indicates whether they’re available for contact, then they’re sprung into a conversation they weren’t ready for and didn’t want to have.

The guy in the story allegedly said the following, which, if true, makes his case completely different from the OP’s. From the BBC article…

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”.

That’s not at all the same as accidentally busting a nut during consensual unprotected sex, which has always been a thing that happens to people and will continue to be a thing that happens to people. There’s nothing we’ve seen to show that OP shared that intent, and the intent seems to be what the prosecutors are hinging their case on.

you can’t really be this stupid…

stop harassing the girl, let it fucking go!

I’m sure she was cordial/polite to you via text because she doesn’t feel like making you angry at her again and having a stalker. She’s probably scared of you.

You’re confused? I’ll help you. She doesn’t want you. Get over it. You’re a piece of shit, and girls don’t like pieces of shit. What, you think because she sent you a smiley face she likes you now? Are you 10 years old?

side note: I’ve had a lot of drunken sex. Hundreds of times. I have never, ever accidentally ejaculated in a girl. Doesn’t happen.

2 Likes

See my most recent post above. It’s the same case.

Of course it does. My pull-out success record is 100% if you go by pregnancy avoidance. It’s probably something like several thousand successes to two failures if you go by controlling when I ejaculate. There was the time above from when I was 22 or so and in what could probably best be described as a “McLovin Moment” and, oddly enough, the first time I had unprotected sex with my current girlfriend. I literally came on the first pump and I’ve never had a problem with premature ejaculation before or since. I still pulled out but some definitely shot inside. It was super-embarrassing.

Luckily she gave me another chance!

Do you know what happened with that case in the article you linked? The judges ordered the prosecutors to review their decision, but was the guy charged in the end? Either way, as @twojarslave already mentioned, this is different from the OP’s situation because the man actually voiced his intentions to cum inside the girl. At the same time, a different category of crime would be more appropriate than rape or sexual assault, perhaps “reproductive coercion” as you suggested, since the sex itself was consensual.

The lesson to be learned from this is that having sex without a condom is a bad idea outside of a relationship. Too many bad things can happen. Condoms aren’t much fun, but neither is child support, STDs, or a prison sentence.

What a time to be alive.

Next time my wife mentions having a third kids I’ll be sending her a link to this law.

1 Like

Nope. Still apples and oranges for the same reason. Intent. That’s what their prosecution hinges on. Clear intent to ignore the wishes of the other, not an accidental ejaculation.

A commenced sexual intercourse with F, who did not object. A was aware that F
would not consent to him ejaculating inside her vagina. However, shortly after
penetration, A said that he intended to ejaculate inside her “…because you are my
wife and I’ll do it if I want”. A then ejaculated before F could say or do anything and,
_as a result, F became pregnant. _

HELD, ORDERING A JUDICIAL REVIEW, F consented to sexual intercourse on the
_clear understanding that A would not ejaculate inside her vagina. A deliberately _
ignored the basis of F’s consent to sexual intercourse as a manifestation of his
control over her.

I always pictured you surrounded by pill bottles and used syringes.

3 Likes

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t press charges, like they said. But I believe the underlying premise is, “Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina.”

Emphasis mine, obviously. I do agree that deliberately is certainly a key issue, though “I was drunk and couldn’t help it” is far from a solid defense for anything.

My mistake. I didn’t put two and two together.

Most likely she doesn’t want you anymore. Move on, and don’t repeat the same mistakes. If you aren’t 100% confident in your pull-out skills then use a condom, or make sure the girl is on some kind of birth control.

Being drunk is actually irrelevant to the intent. You can be drunk and still intend to deceive someone about your intentions to pull out and you can be sober and not have control over your ejaculation.

No crime took place with the OP, not even in the UK.

Correct.

Disclaimer: This is not my opinion, nor am I giving one because I have no balls.

Drunkenness is actually a partial defense for certain crimes, at least in Canada. Getting drunk and crashing into someone is different because you shouldn’t have gotten into the car in the first place, there is no law against having sex when you are drunk.

Correct.

It’s probably used as a mitigating factor during sentencing and not an actual defence.