MPs to vote on abortion limit cut

[Asguard]

Bells by the same logic the girl who was given IVF by her doctor without her concent and said exactly the same thing (ie that she feels like she was raped) should just suck it up? After all its only a kid you have to look after, feed, clothe ect so grow up and deal with it right? How dare she compare it to rape, right?

I hope YOU would show more empathy if THAT case ever crossed your desk

 

[Orleander]

I don't know, maybe she said it because it was her body that was violated, not her bank account. Is this somehtign you heard n the radio or do you have a link to that story?

 

[Asguard]

no i dont and to be honest i dont really care to find one. Orleander tell me if she was unconcious for 9 months and woke up after the birth (hypothetically of course) you are saying she WOULDNT have a right to feel volated or betrayed right?

 

[Orleander]

no i dont and to be honest i dont really care to find one. .....

Are we allowed to just make up stories like that? Is she the one you heard about on the radio that poked holes in a condom?

 

[Bells]

Bells by the same logic the girl who was given IVF by her doctor without her concent and said exactly the same thing (ie that she feels like she was raped) should just suck it up? After all its only a kid you have to look after, feed, clothe ect so grow up and deal with it right? How dare she compare it to rape, right?

I hope YOU would show more empathy if THAT case ever crossed your desk

Do you think it is even remotely possible for a woman to be given IVF without her knowledge? Is it even the same thing as a man being forced to be financially responsible for his unwanted child? Think about it.

Again, you are missing a vital point. One has a person's body and person violated without their consent (or knowledge in a situation you later mentioned about a woman being in a coma for 9 months and being impregnated during that time.. inconceivable, but we'll run with it). The other has had consensual sex with a woman who deceived him so she could get pregnant. Had he been raped or not consented to sex, then you might have a point that he should never be forced to financially support a child that was the result of his rape. You're not talking male rape however.

You are basically saying that a man has sex with a woman, full consensual sex, the woman is a nut job, deceives him by poking holes in a condom and then forces him to be financially responsible for a child he does not want and you are equating that to rape? To rape?

Of course he has a right to feel violated and be angry. Hell, who in their right mind wouldn't be? But to describe his forced financial responsibility to his unwanted child as being akin to rape? Again, think about it. Let me ask you a question. Lets say you are falsely given a speeding ticket and you lose the case in court and have to pay the fine and court costs. Would you say that was akin to being raped?

 

[Asguard]

Actually i wasnt refering to the finantial side at all (except for the fact that he has been the victom of at the very least fraud and then gets screwed by the courts to). I was compleatly refering to the EMOTIONAL side.

I have herd some horentious stories in relation to human sexuality, ranging from the treatment at the NZ guyncological center (im sure you herd about that case) through to women who THOUGHT they were having there partners babie with IVF only to find out that it was the doctors sperm used insted of there partners, though to interlectually disabled women who had hysorectomies without there conent right through to women inplanted without there knowlage.

Personally i find the human race to be sick and disterbing (and by that i dont at all mean homosexuality or anything done with concent).

Bells i found your comment to be compleatly offencive not because it differed from mine but because you think commenting on a message board on the internet is in anyway equivlant to working with a pt.

I was talking about the persons FEELINGS and nothing more. Hell i would feel vilolated if i found out someone had used my skin cells to clone me as well (though in that case i PROBABLY would have a right to sue the doctors involved)

Bells do you think that rape is rape or do you think there are degrees?
Maybe to a court there are degrees (this person deserves life without parol because he raped, torchered and killed this person but this one only deserves 15 years because they did nothing other than rape them) but i am lucky enough not to HAVE to deal with that side. I would NEVER go up to a person who had been raped and say "cheer up, at least you wernt locked in a basement for 15 years and raped by your father like that women in whereever it was"

Oh and BTW as im SURE you are aware for concent to be valid it MUST be INFORMED concent. Im yet to hear of someone sueing there partner because they lied to get them into bed and im not sure how that case would go but there partner MUST be informed as to the circumstances around there sexual activity. Ie its unconcentual if you fail to disclose to your partner that you have aids and they think its safe to forgo protection because you cant give concent if your not informed of the nessary details (of course this charge pails in comparision to the atempted murder charge that the crown would lay but who cares, its there).

Basically i think people should be protected from actions which are likly to cause damage to there mental health and you on the other hand seem to want to pick and chose.

The danger in my line of thought is that you could end up with a situation where cheating becomes a criminal offence because it harms your partner which (though i have been there and it almost got me killed) i dont surport at all.

 

[Bells]

Actually i wasnt refering to the finantial side at all (except for the fact that he has been the victom of at the very least fraud and then gets screwed by the courts to). I was compleatly refering to the EMOTIONAL side.

I have herd some horentious stories in relation to human sexuality, ranging from the treatment at the NZ guyncological center (im sure you herd about that case) through to women who THOUGHT they were having there partners babie with IVF only to find out that it was the doctors sperm used insted of there partners, though to interlectually disabled women who had hysorectomies without there conent right through to women inplanted without there knowlage.

Personally i find the human race to be sick and disterbing (and by that i dont at all mean homosexuality or anything done with concent).

Bells i found your comment to be compleatly offencive not because it differed from mine but because you think commenting on a message board on the internet is in anyway equivlant to working with a pt.

I was talking about the persons FEELINGS and nothing more. Hell i would feel vilolated if i found out someone had used my skin cells to clone me as well (though in that case i PROBABLY would have a right to sue the doctors involved)

Bells do you think that rape is rape or do you think there are degrees?
Maybe to a court there are degrees (this person deserves life without parol because he raped, torchered and killed this person but this one only deserves 15 years because they did nothing other than rape them) but i am lucky enough not to HAVE to deal with that side. I would NEVER go up to a person who had been raped and say "cheer up, at least you wernt locked in a basement for 15 years and raped by your father like that women in whereever it was"

Oh and BTW as im SURE you are aware for concent to be valid it MUST be INFORMED concent. Im yet to hear of someone sueing there partner because they lied to get them into bed and im not sure how that case would go but there partner MUST be informed as to the circumstances around there sexual activity. Ie its unconcentual if you fail to disclose to your partner that you have aids and they think its safe to forgo protection because you cant give concent if your not informed of the nessary details (of course this charge pails in comparision to the atempted murder charge that the crown would lay but who cares, its there).

Basically i think people should be protected from actions which are likly to cause damage to there mental health and you on the other hand seem to want to pick and chose.

The danger in my line of thought is that you could end up with a situation where cheating becomes a criminal offence because it harms your partner which (though i have been there and it almost got me killed) i dont surport at all.

Where did I say that women who deceive men in order to fall pregnant should somehow get off scott free? That it is something that is acceptable?

I was merely disputing your comparison of the men in such situations to that of rape. That somehow being made a parent to an unwanted child and being therefore financially responsible to that is akin to rape. You never defined your position on this until now. Would a man feel violated by having a woman prick holes in his condoms? Yes. I never denied that. But to compare his anger and feelings to that of a rape victim? Come on Asguard..

Lets look at your comments to date in this thread and look for your mention of "feelings" shall we?

LA i was watching an episode of SVU the other day and did you know that in the US a father is forced to pay for a child EVEN if the mother used deception to concive against his wishes. Its tandamount to rape in my opinion and yet he is still forced to care for a child he didnt want

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1866642&postcount=2
​

How are we meant to interpret that Asguard? I can't read your mind. You are taking a fictional story in a TV series and then commenting on it as though the case were indeed fact. Does it happen in real life? I'm sure it does. Using deception to conceive a child against the father's wishes is not rape Asguard. It is nothing like it. I wouldn't even think of comparing the two. Anyway, to carry on..

Still no matter how rare it is (even if we take your one in a million births as an example) i still belive its equivlant to rape or drink spiking. Yet there are no laws against it which i find highly odd.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1885897&postcount=9
​

Drink spiking is tampering with someone's beverage to render that individual incapable of thinking clearly, or to even render them unconscious, usually to rape or sexually assault them. Again, think about it for a few minutes. Yes, it is still deceitful as pricking some holes in a condom or telling the guy you're on the pill when you're not is deceitful. What are the effects of a spiked drink on a person? Hell, if the victim is unlucky enough, they could end up dying as a result. Again.. think about it..

What is rape?
definition: unconcentual sexual activity

If i give concent to have sex with you on the previso we use protection and you sabotage that protection then you have violated the terms of that concent.

So yes its rape
Its also FRAUD in that you lied
and possably common law assult as well

(Post 11)
​

Again, are you serious in this? Fraud and deceit does not equal rape. Feeling violated and angry and hurt does not equal a rape. Rape and the scenario you have proposed in this thread are not one and the same. A rape is a rape. Its effects are vastly different to what you have proposed and introduced in this thread.

Lets face it, you are basically comparing someone pricking some holes in a condom or lying about being on the pill to someone being forced to endure a sexual assault where their bodies are violated and injured in ways I cannot even begin to describe.

A guy punches holes in a condom, feeds you fertility drugs and then ties you up until your past the time where you can have an abortion because he wants a child and you dont. What do YOU call it?

If you delibratly sabotase birth control in order to FORCE your desires on someone else that is the same as rape. In no way am i talking about a situation where the condom breaks or they both decide to "risk it". Nor have i ever stated that i was.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1887835&postcount=15
​

:bugeye:

Why would he bother using the condom if his intent was to get her pregnant before he had sex with her? But that's another scenario for a different topic really..

Anyway, you are equating a physical assault on someone (tying them up, giving them fertility drugs without their knowledge or consent by force or deceipt) to a guy finding out his girlfriend or partner having pricked holes in his condoms or lied about using the pill and refusing to get an abortion when he tells her he doesn't want the child.

Rape is rape. There are no gray areas. Rape is any sexual intercourse by force. There is a difference between that (rape) and the scenario you brought up in this thread (deception). Again, think about it..

the fact that i find orleanders attitude that men are only there to provide sperm when women want a child and then pay for it regardless of there own feelings on the matter highly offencive

Orleander you do realise that if you have sex with your husband while he is alseep that IS rape dont you. They recently changed the laws so that if your partner is drunk or asleep its rape.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1888563&postcount=23
​

Firstly, nowhere did she say that men are only there to provide sperm when a woman wants a child. What she did say, and I have to agree with her, is that rape and what you are have brought up in this thread in regards to the deception some may have used to have a child are not the same thing, in that said deception you are talking about is not rape.

And you keep altering the subject. If a woman has sex with her husband while he is asleep, he wakes up and tells her to get off and she does not, but holds him down until he ejaculates inside of her, that is rape, because he did not consent to the sexual act. Pricking holes in a condom or lying about being on birth control pills is not rape. Again, totally different scenarios. Can you see the difference?

Can you see the difference between the original scenario you proposed in this thread and what constitutes a rape?

 

[Prince_James]

Don't say the "r" word around Bells.

She gets her panties up in a bunch and starts seeing red.

If she turned green, she'd have been cast instead of Norton for the Incredible Hulk.

BELLS SMASH

Of course, it doesn't matter that being forced to pay for 18 years out of one's pocket, wedded to virtually no rights and no recognition of one's status of a father, et cetera, is just as abusive as a single instance of physical assault, if not moreso, especially as unlike the rape victim, a father can be put in jail or lose his house for not giving into the same sort of violation.

 

[Bells]

Don't say the "r" word around Bells.

She gets her panties up in a bunch and starts seeing red.

If she turned green, she'd have been cast instead of Norton for the Incredible Hulk.

BELLS SMASH

Of course, it doesn't matter that being forced to pay for 18 years out of one's pocket, wedded to virtually no rights and no recognition of one's status of a father, et cetera, is just as abusive as a single instance of physical assault, if not moreso, especially as unlike the rape victim, a father can be put in jail or lose his house for not giving into the same sort of violation.

So you'd consider being ordered by a court to pay over a percentage of your weekly earnings to a child you did not want and have had through your partner's deceit as being the same as having a penis or other object rammed into your backside or mouth against your wishes, along with all the injuries that come with such physical assaults? Right..

But lets take Asguard's scenario. Lets imagine a guy rapes a woman and she gets pregnant. He serves a few months in jail. She decides to not have an abortion (she is against abortion for whatever reason). She then sues him and the court orders him to give over a percentage of his weekly income to a child he claims he does not want. Has she raped him in suing him and demanding he financially help support a child he does not want? Do you think he has been raped by the court's findings in that he has to financially support a child he does not want?

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

So you'd consider being ordered by a court to pay over a percentage of your weekly earnings to a child you did not want and have had through your partner's deceit as being the same as having a penis or other object rammed into your backside or mouth against your wishes, along with all the injuries that come with such physical assaults? Right..

When you wed this to the emotional and mental anguish of being routinely denied one's recognition as a father and other rights, yes. Especially when the likelyhood of physical rape increases exponentially for a man if he refuses and is sent to jail.

Physical rape is one instance. Being raped by the system is 18 years ongoing, minimum.

But lets take Asguard's scenario. Lets imagine a guy rapes a woman and she gets pregnant. He serves a few months in jail. She decides to not have an abortion (she is against abortion for whatever reason). She then sues him and the court orders him to give over a percentage of his weekly income to a child he claims he does not want. Has she raped him in suing him and demanding he financially help support a child he does not want? Do you think he has been raped by the court's findings in that he has to financially support a child he does not want?

No, because he is a rapist. As such, he pretty much loses his rights to protest legal fetters.

If the sex was consensual, yes, he has been raped.

Of course, one could say, as the Op suggests, that sex is not consensual when the woman deceives. As such, she has legally raped the man by not divulging the nature of the sexual union. Of course, that is if we adhere to the ludicrousness of a few modern legal loopholes in rape which make "feeling bad afterwards" sufficient reason to cry rape.

 

[Bells]

Bells:

When you wed this to the emotional and mental anguish of being routinely denied one's recognition as a father and other rights, yes. Especially when the likelyhood of physical rape increases exponentially for a man if he refuses and is sent to jail.

Physical rape is one instance. Being raped by the system is 18 years ongoing, minimum.

No one is talking about denying the man the right to be recognised as the father of the child.

Let me make something quite clear. I find it abhorrent that there are people out there who will try to conceive or have their partner conceive through acts of deceit. I also find it disgusting that fathers in cases where the woman deceives him into getting her pregnant (eg. pricking holes in condoms, etc) do not have legal recourse to get out of being a parent or being a father, be it financially, physically and emotionally. Men in such cases should have the right to step away and should not be forced into financially supporting a child he had no plans on having or had been deceived into having. The case of Dubay v Wells brings this point to light. Dubay was dating a woman and had been explicit in that he did not want to have children. Wells told him she could not have children and she was on the pill. They separated and went their own way. She had lied and had fallen pregnant. When she informed him that he was about to be the father of their child, they apparently discussed adoption, but then she changed her mind and decided to keep it. He refused and she took him to court. He lost. His appeal was also over turned. Should he have been made to pay for child support? No. Personally, I don't think so.

There is a term called "male abortion", first brought to light by Melanie McCulley, where she discusses the fact that men do not have a right to abort their rights as fathers. women on the other hand do. If a woman does not want to have a child, she can either abort it or put it up for adoption. Men do not have that luxury. If the woman decides to keep the child, he has no rights whatsoever and be forced by the legal system to financially support said child. Do I agree with this? No. But I would not view it as rape either.

There is a distinct difference between a rape and between being screwed over by the legal system.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

Let me make something quite clear. I find it abhorrent that there are people out there who will try to conceive or have their partner conceive through acts of deceit. I also find it disgusting that fathers in cases where the woman deceives him into getting her pregnant (eg. pricking holes in condoms, etc) do not have legal recourse to get out of being a parent or being a father, be it financially, physically and emotionally. Men in such cases should have the right to step away and should not be forced into financially supporting a child he had no plans on having or had been deceived into having. The case of Dubay v Wells brings this point to light. Dubay was dating a woman and had been explicit in that he did not want to have children. Wells told him she could not have children and she was on the pill. They separated and went their own way. She had lied and had fallen pregnant. When she informed him that he was about to be the father of their child, they apparently discussed adoption, but then she changed her mind and decided to keep it. He refused and she took him to court. He lost. His appeal was also over turned. Should he have been made to pay for child support? No. Personally, I don't think so.

I'm glad we're in agreement on this issue.

There is a term called "male abortion", first brought to light by Melanie McCulley, where she discusses the fact that men do not have a right to abort their rights as fathers. women on the other hand do. If a woman does not want to have a child, she can either abort it or put it up for adoption. Men do not have that luxury. If the woman decides to keep the child, he has no rights whatsoever and be forced by the legal system to financially support said child. Do I agree with this? No. But I would not view it as rape either.

Yes. There is (sadly) no "male abortion" as it were. I don't like that term very much, though. It's a bit unsavoury.

There is a distinct difference between a rape and between being screwed over by the legal system.

If it also includes the mental, emotional, and financial burdens, I can't see how it can be viewed as less harmful, and therefore, at least equivalent. Obviously the actions are different.

 

[Orleander]

....If it also includes the mental, emotional, and financial burdens, I can't see how it can be viewed as less harmful, and therefore, at least equivalent. Obviously the actions are different.

But what about it is terrorizing and puts you in fear for your life? What about it is having one of the most sensitive and private parts of you brutalized?

 

[Asguard]

bells i dont say this at all to offend you so please dont take this personally.

I was thinking after reading your responce that i could think of a quite concivable situation (under current law) where a person comits rape with NO damage or only psycological damage.

Take the new laws that if your asleep you cant concent (im ASSUMING they make exception for those people who concent to there partners screwing them while they sleep BEFORE going to sleep BTW)

For example (so that i dont confuse myself) we will make the man agressor and the women victom

Women thinks sex while she is asleep is wrong (or has no opinion at all because they have never discussed it), she is on the pill and both her and her husband have no STD's. He is an insomnia and she falls asleep before him. She is "frisky" in her sleep and he has sex with her.

Ok first ending senario, she doesnt wake up. There is no evidence of crime ect
He is guilty of rape (so he should be BTW, she never told him he could do that). However there is no harm at all, no STD's, she doesnt get pregnant and (as she doesnt know she has been raped) not even any psycological harm.

Second senario she wakes up just as he is finished. She yells and screams at him about how discusting it is ect and she suffers psycological harm. She still has no physical harm, no pregnancy and no STD's and certianly no death (though he might be running for his life at this point). He is still as guilty of rape as if he grabed a girl off the streets and vilontly raped her.

Now you will know more of this than i do but under the law i BELIVE rape atracts the same penelty for this crime as if she had been vilontly assulted, so it should.

However you cant tell me that this senario is in no way comparable to the PYCOLGICAL harm that i have theorised would be caused by what we have been debating? You yourself said that he would have a right to feel hurt, betrayed, possably depressed, untrusting, resentful ect.

BTW i would like your opinion on the changes to the sexual assult laws. DO they mean that if you have sex with your partner while they are asleep or drunk and someone sees you (films you on security camera ect) you can be charged even if they wanted you to and gave permission when in a conciouse state or do these laws require a complaintent?

 

[Orleander]

asguard, what does any of that have to do with poking holes in a condom being equivalent to rape?

What does being awake or asleep have anything to do with your original statement?

 

[Bells]

bells i dont say this at all to offend you so please dont take this personally.

I was thinking after reading your responce that i could think of a quite concivable situation (under current law) where a person comits rape with NO damage or only psycological damage.

Just because someone is not harmed by it psychologically does not mean they weren't raped if they have in fact been raped.

Women thinks sex while she is asleep is wrong (or has no opinion at all because they have never discussed it), she is on the pill and both her and her husband have no STD's. He is an insomnia and she falls asleep before him. She is "frisky" in her sleep and he has sex with her.

Ok first ending senario, she doesnt wake up. There is no evidence of crime ect
He is guilty of rape (so he should be BTW, she never told him he could do that). However there is no harm at all, no STD's, she doesnt get pregnant and (as she doesnt know she has been raped) not even any psycological harm.

If she wakes up the next morning for example, and realises her husband had sex with her during the night while she slept, yes, she can say he raped her because he did. He did not have consent.

Second senario she wakes up just as he is finished. She yells and screams at him about how discusting it is ect and she suffers psycological harm. She still has no physical harm, no pregnancy and no STD's and certianly no death (though he might be running for his life at this point). He is still as guilty of rape as if he grabed a girl off the streets and vilontly raped her.

Yes.

Now you will know more of this than i do but under the law i BELIVE rape atracts the same penelty for this crime as if she had been vilontly assulted, so it should.

She has been assaulted. That's what rape is. A sexual assault upon another person without their consent. As for sentencing? Heh.. the way things are going, he'd probably get 1 year good behaviour bond. Ideally yes, he should still get the same type of sentencing as any other rapist.

Some rapists will get longer terms for crimes such as false imprisonment, kidnapping, weapons charges (knife, gun, etc), etc. Hence why the sentences will not always be the same. Other things such as whether he beat her, etc will also be taken into consideration during sentencing. It is not so cut and dried as saying rape = this sentence automatically.

However you cant tell me that this senario is in no way comparable to the PYCOLGICAL harm that i have theorised would be caused by what we have been debating? You yourself said that he would have a right to feel hurt, betrayed, possably depressed, untrusting, resentful ect.

While the father to be feels psychological harm, trust issues, feels hurt, depressed, etc, it is not rape. Different things altogether. Of course he has a right to feel hurt, angry, etc. But it's still not rape. Your original claim is that it was "equivalent to rape". Rape and your scenario about prophylactic tampering are completely different. Rape is rape, like murder is murder.

BTW i would like your opinion on the changes to the sexual assult laws. DO they mean that if you have sex with your partner while they are asleep or drunk and someone sees you (films you on security camera ect) you can be charged even if they wanted you to and gave permission when in a conciouse state or do these laws require a complaintent?

I haven't heard of these changes? Been out of the loop recently with this kind of thing. Not kept up with my readings. Which state?

As for what you are proposing, if the individual had consented prior to falling asleep or getting drunk, then it isn't really rape, is it?

 

[Asguard]

I never said it wasnt rape BTW. As i clearly stated the basted SHOULD be charged but it is still an incident void of your OTHER harms. i may be confusing rape with sexual assult BTW, i herd of a doctor who was charged with sexual assult for a procidure that the PT wasnt in there right mind to concent to the procidure though there was no sexual componant to the doctors actions. Sorry i dont rember the case involved (if i ever knew it), it was just an example brought up in ethics and law

As for the post script i THINK its in NSW but im not 100% sure if it wasnt an across the board law change. As for if its really rape i agree except that there are alot of cases where the law just doesnt care wether concent was given or not. Take for instance the IDIOTIC initial laws on FGM where they could charge people for peircing the genitils of someone who asked for it done or the stat rape laws where a complaining witness isnt required (no im NOT saying the stat rape laws are wrong). If they based these laws on the stat rape laws then even if the partner agreed and wanted to have sex, if they are concidered "unable to concent through mental impairment" then the partner COULD be charged anyway. I have to say there have been some REALLY stupid laws passed (by goverments of both persuasions) with the right intentions but with idiotic advice.

 

[Asguard]

well to revive this debate it actually seems i was right and it is sexual assult for a person to tamper with birth control

Negation of consent

Proposed section 61HA (4) and (5) provide that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse with another person:

(a) if the person does not have the capacity to consent, including because of age or cognitive incapacity, or

(b) if the person does not have the opportunity to consent because the person is unconscious or asleep, or

(c) if the person consents because of threats of force or terror (whether the threats are against, or the terror is instilled in, that person or any other person), or

(d) if the person consents because the person is unlawfully detained, or (e) if the person consents under a mistaken belief as to the identity of the other person, that the other person is married to the person or that the sexual intercourse is for medical or hygienic purposes (or under any other mistaken belief about the nature of the act induced by fraudulent means).

The circumstances set out in paragraphs (c) and (e), above, replace similar provisions currently set out in section 61R (2).

Proposed section 61HA (6) provides that the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include:

(a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug, or

(b) if the person has sexual intercourse because of intimidatory or coercive conduct, or other threat, that does not involve a threat of force, or

(c) if the person has sexual intercourse because of the abuse of a position of authority or trust.

Proposed section 61HA (7) provides that a person is not to be regarded as consenting to sexual intercourse by reason only of the fact that the person does not offer actual physical resistance to the sexual intercourse. This replaces a similar provision currently contained in section 61R (2) (d).

Proposed section 61HA (8) makes it clear that the above provisions do not limit the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse.

viewed 05/07/08 at 20:54

i have highlighted the relivent section, as delibrate tampering with birth control be it through lying about taking the pill OR though physically poking holes in condoms is a fraugulant act, in NSW at least its criminal sexual assult