Rape by Deception

[Ors Might]

Here’s the thing though, people are entitled to not have sex with any demographic or type of person, no questions asked. And if you think there’s a solid chance that something about you is likely to impact their choice to have sex with you, you’re ethically obligated to disclose that.

What if they don't want to have sex with conservatives or socialists? Should people complete a Political Compass before getting into bed? Should people declare if they use contact lenses?

If they don’t want to have sex with somebody of a certain political persuasion, then they should clarify that before hand. But if you’re say, a Nazi, you should probably bring that up at some point in the meet and greet process. Just common courtesy to warn your potential sexual partner of things that has a good chance of influencing their decision to have sex with you.

[The Emerald Legion]

What if they don't want to have sex with conservatives or socialists? Should people complete a Political Compass before getting into bed? Should people declare if they use contact lenses?

If they don’t want to have sex with somebody of a certain political persuasion, then they should clarify that before hand. But if you’re say, a Nazi, you should probably bring that up at some point in the meet and greet process. Just common courtesy to warn your potential sexual partner of things that has a good chance of influencing their decision to have sex with you.

Because Nazis are totally known for their common courtesy, empathy, and respect for the bodily autonomy of their fellow human beings.

[UniversalCommons]

Whatever the situation is I am not paying for it with my tax dollars or welfare (creating single mothers is costly), the person who did the action is going to pay for it with a job and extensive probation.

[Ors Might]

If they don’t want to have sex with somebody of a certain political persuasion, then they should clarify that before hand. But if you’re say, a Nazi, you should probably bring that up at some point in the meet and greet process. Just common courtesy to warn your potential sexual partner of things that has a good chance of influencing their decision to have sex with you.

Because Nazis are totally known for their common courtesy, empathy, and respect for the bodily autonomy of their fellow human beings.

Was just an example. You can replace it with any controversial identity and it’d still work for the purposes of the post.

My point was that if something about you has a fairly high chance of changing their desire to have sex with you, you’d probably do well to disclose that beforehand.

[Novus America]

Because Nazis are totally known for their common courtesy, empathy, and respect for the bodily autonomy of their fellow human beings.

Was just an example. You can replace it with any controversial identity and it’d still work for the purposes of the post.

My point was that if something about you has a fairly high chance of changing their desire to have sex with you, you’d probably do well to disclose that beforehand.

Of course. The issue is that just because you should ethically disclose something does not necessarily create a LEGAL affirmative duty to do so.

Ethical responsibilities and legal duties are not the same thing.

[James_xenoland]

So lies about being on BC = rape now?! jfc We truly are in the clown era.. *facepalm*

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don’t know if I’d go straight to calling it rape, but it’s most definitely a deception.

[Greed and Death]

If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.

She consented to sex without a condom the deception was if he had the surgical procedure to be sterile. I do not see this as rape the lie in this case doesn't negate her consent. The reason removing a condom could be sexual assault and not this is with removal of a condom subjects the woman to fluids she has not consented to have inside of her. In this case the woman has consented to fluids inside her.

I think the remedy in this case should be limited to civil court have the man liable for child support, abortion, and any counseling the woman may need as a result of the pregnancy and leave out the jail time.

[Greed and Death]

So lies about being on BC = rape now?! jfc We truly are in the clown era.. *facepalm*

So many of my army buddies married the woman who lied about being on BC in order to get pregnant with a solider and leave their small town. I think viewing this as rape is a bridge too far.

[Ethel mermania]

If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.

She consented to sex without a condom the deception was if he had the surgical procedure to be sterile. I do not see this as rape the lie in this case doesn't negate her consent. The reason removing a condom could be sexual assault and not this is with removal of a condom subjects the woman to fluids she has not consented to have inside of her. In this case the woman has consented to fluids inside her.

I think the remedy in this case should be limited to civil court have the man liable for child support, abortion, and any counseling the woman may need as a result of the pregnancy and leave out the jail time.

And triple damages for being such a jerkface, but basically agreed.

[Ors Might]

Was just an example. You can replace it with any controversial identity and it’d still work for the purposes of the post.

My point was that if something about you has a fairly high chance of changing their desire to have sex with you, you’d probably do well to disclose that beforehand.

Of course. The issue is that just because you should ethically disclose something does not necessarily create a LEGAL affirmative duty to do so.

Ethical responsibilities and legal duties are not the same thing.

Of course, you shouldn’t be legally punished for not disclosing something beforehand, unless we’re talking STDs. If you lie, then something should happen. I wouldn’t punish it as rape but I would definitely say it’s fraudulent behavior.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmmm? I don't really like the comparison of a vasectomy and the pill.

Reasons in no particular order:
* A vasectomy requires body modification. Why would a guy lie about it? Well mainly "I don't like the feel of a condom" Still it can be said to be "heavy handed" compared to wearing a condom. The guy deserved to be punished. Just as a woman who lies about having her tubes tied.
* The pill can be forgotten especially when a woman isn't taking it for a medical reason. I ran into that once back at uni.
* How do you prove she lied about being on the pill? Maybe if she doesn't have a prescription?

Finally, if you don't know the person that well (ie dating sites). Why would you take their claims at face value? Even in the case of the vesectomy; it suggests he avoids condoms when possible. STD chances increase a great deal.....

Anyway....

[Novus America]

Of course. The issue is that just because you should ethically disclose something does not necessarily create a LEGAL affirmative duty to do so.

Ethical responsibilities and legal duties are not the same thing.

Of course, you shouldn’t be legally punished for not disclosing something beforehand, unless we’re talking STDs. If you lie, then something should happen. I wouldn’t punish it as rape but I would definitely say it’s fraudulent behavior.

I do agree with you there.

[Galloism]

Hmmmm? I don't really like the comparison of a vasectomy and the pill.

Reasons in no particular order:
* A vasectomy requires body modification. Why would a guy lie about it? Well mainly "I don't like the feel of a condom" Still it can be said to be "heavy handed" compared to wearing a condom. The guy deserved to be punished. Just as a woman who lies about having her tubes tied.
* The pill can be forgotten especially when a woman isn't taking it for a medical reason. I ran into that once back at uni.
* How do you prove she lied about being on the pill? Maybe if she doesn't have a prescription?

Finally, if you don't know the person that well (ie dating sites). Why would you take their claims at face value? Even in the case of the vesectomy; it suggests he avoids condoms when possible. STD chances increase a great deal.....

Anyway....

I mean, typically we catch people in lies because they admit it. Not necessarily to police, but on something like facebook or via a text message or something like that. You know... evidence.

How would you know this guy lied about having a vasectomy? Clearly there's a record of the lie, and proof it never happened. You could go the prescription route, or, sometimes people brag to their friends about what they did via instant or text message.

[Rojava Free State]

It isn't rape if there are no "take-back-sies." If its considered rape, it is just another sign of gynocentricism being entrenched in society. Anything involving sex that a woman doesn't like, isn't automatically rape necessarily. But people pushing this would have you believe that it is.

I swear to god that word gynocentrism is as overused and meaningless as kekistan's "zhanghism." It's a pointless term used by 50 MGTOWs in 49 countries to criticize society for having relations between men and women, and portraying other men as weak for being attracted to women and not being the fierce misogynistic warriors of (fake) masculinity that MgTOW is. No, society isn't gynocentric anymore than it is phallocentric. We may as well say society is winnie the pooh centric, cause he's more real than gynocentrism is

[Rojava Free State]

I don’t know if I’d go straight to calling it rape, but it’s most definitely a deception.

It's a dick move

[Saiwania]

I swear to god that word gynocentrism is as overused and meaningless as kekistan's "zhanghism." It's a pointless term used by 50 MGTOWs in 49 countries to criticize society for having relations between men and women, and portraying other men as weak for being attracted to women and not being the fierce misogynistic warriors of (fake) masculinity that MgTOW is. No, society isn't gynocentric anymore than it is phallocentric. We may as well say society is winnie the pooh centric, cause he's more real than gynocentrism is

The fact is that men have certain disadvantages in society relative to women. This is even more so, in countries where Feminism is most prominant and has the most influence. Namely, its what men allow women to get a pass on.

A small male elite still holds most of the real economic and political power in most developed societies, however- in some areas women clearly have more of the advantage. On matters of Criminal Justice, of course men are going to get tougher sentences than women generally speaking. In Divorce and Child Custody cases, the judge is of course going to be biased towards wanting the woman to win the case. There are plenty of more examples, but you should understand.

It should be clear enough that the point amongst the MGTOW crowd isn't to criticize heterosexual relationships. I see no indication that this is what they oppose. What they really do is criticize the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s onward, and are against what hardcore Feminism is trying to accomplish. Because in all likelihood, it'd come at the expense of men for women's gain.

[Rojava Free State]

I swear to god that word gynocentrism is as overused and meaningless as kekistan's "zhanghism." It's a pointless term used by 50 MGTOWs in 49 countries to criticize society for having relations between men and women, and portraying other men as weak for being attracted to women and not being the fierce misogynistic warriors of (fake) masculinity that MgTOW is. No, society isn't gynocentric anymore than it is phallocentric. We may as well say society is winnie the pooh centric, cause he's more real than gynocentrism is

The fact is that men have certain disadvantages in society relative to women. This is even more so, in countries where Feminism is most prominant and has the most influence. Namely, its what men allow women to get a pass on.

A small male elite still holds most of the real economic and political power in most developed societies, however- in some areas women clearly have more of the advantage. On matters of Criminal Justice, of course men are going to get tougher sentences than women generally speaking. In Divorce and Child Custody cases, the judge is of course going to be biased towards wanting the woman to win the case. There are plenty of more examples, but you should understand.

It should be clear enough that the point amongst the MGTOW crowd isn't to criticize heterosexual relationships. I see no indication that this is what they oppose. What they really do is criticize the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s onward, and are against what hardcore Feminism is trying to accomplish. Because in all likelihood, it'd come at the expense of men for women's gain.

Men going their own way. Clearly they have either rejected sexual relations or pretend to in order to disguise that they're really incels. Men have some disadvantages and women have some too. I'm not gonna say men have it easy cause I'm a man and have seen with my own eyes the prejudice. But MGTOW is a major over correction and plague that needs to vanish from this earth. The solution to anti male sexism is not sexism toward women

[The Free Joy State]

If use of a condom is a precondition for consent, then violating that consent is rape. Consent to sex does not mean "consent to whatever, however, wherever". Actually removing condoms without consent has already been prosecuted as sexual assault in both Germany and Canada, and as rape in Switzerland.

If one party lies to obtain sex, then that party should be tried and punished appropriately.

And, if fatherhood should result from rape, the father should not be liable for child support.

She consented to sex without a condom the deception was if he had the surgical procedure to be sterile. I do not see this as rape the lie in this case doesn't negate her consent. The reason removing a condom could be sexual assault and not this is with removal of a condom subjects the woman to fluids she has not consented to have inside of her. In this case the woman has consented to fluids inside her.

I think the remedy in this case should be limited to civil court have the man liable for child support, abortion, and any counseling the woman may need as a result of the pregnancy and leave out the jail time.

Consent is not a cover-all. If a person consents to a sexual act, then changes their mind, then the partner that says "Hell no, I got my consent. I'm finishing anyway" would be (arguably, many things, but) guilty of rape or sexual assault, depending on jurisdiction.

Also, there is such a thing as informed consent with regards to your body. If you have a medical procedure, the doctor can't tell you to just "sign here to agree" -- they have to let you know exactly what you agreed to (the risks you're running). Where a partner claimed to have a vasectomy, but didn't, there's no way there can be informed consent to sexual activity because the partner didn't know exactly what they were consenting to or the risks they were taking.

[Arkhane]

I think this falls more under fraud than rape. Kinda like a restaurant lying about a recipe not having any allergens that the customer specifically warned the chef about and the chef served it anyway to make a buck and endanger the life of the victim.

[The Free Joy State]

I think this falls more under fraud than rape. Kinda like a restaurant lying about a recipe not having any allergens that the customer specifically warned the chef about and the chef served it anyway to make a buck and endanger the life of the victim.

Outright lying about allergens? Technically untrue that that would be treated as fraud. A restaurant owner was jailed for manslaughter when he lied to a diner, saying there were "no nuts" in a meal -- leading to a man suffering a fatal anaphylaxis.

[Arkhane]

I think this falls more under fraud than rape. Kinda like a restaurant lying about a recipe not having any allergens that the customer specifically warned the chef about and the chef served it anyway to make a buck and endanger the life of the victim.

Outright lying about allergens? Technically untrue that that would be treated as fraud. A restaurant owner was jailed for manslaughter when he lied to a diner, saying there were "no nuts" in a meal -- leading to a man suffering a fatal anaphylaxis.

I'm going to use a closer equivalent then. That of an STD infected individual lying about his condition to a consenting partner and ending up infecting them. Is that case also considered rape?

[The Free Joy State]

Outright lying about allergens? Technically untrue that that would be treated as fraud. A restaurant owner was jailed for manslaughter when he lied to a diner, saying there were "no nuts" in a meal -- leading to a man suffering a fatal anaphylaxis.

I'm going to use a closer equivalent then. That of an STD infected individual lying about his condition to a consenting partner and ending up infecting them. Is that case also considered rape?

In the UK, it's prosecuted as grievous bodily harm. However, if someone did not disclose that they had an STI, that would impact the ability to give informed consent, because the party did not know what risks they were undertaking. So there would be a case for classifying it as rape (or a sexual assault).

Only in sex is the rule "lack of informed consent is no consent at all" questioned so often.

[Totally Not OEP]

The UK, proving once again how crazy it has gotten.

[The Alma Mater]

The UK, proving once again how crazy it has gotten.

It is not exactly UK only. Israel already went this route a decade ago: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5151268