NATION

PASSWORD

Rape by Deception

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Samadhi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1562
Founded: Sep 24, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Samadhi » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:40 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
Totally Not OEP wrote: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


Didn’t Israel’s feminists also go nuts when they went to extend rape to covering male victims?
18 and female
Voluntaryist.
Enjoys watching social democrats act like authoritarian hell states are that much worse than them.
It's all slavery baby.
Proud cat mum, I love Snowy and Hijinks.

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18766
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:47 pm

Arkhane wrote: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?


It isn't necessarily considered rape, depending on what legal code we're talking about. But generally speaking, its most definitely illegal for an HIV positive person to have sex with someone else without disclosing their status if they know they have such a condition. It might be required that they wear a condom unless the other person is HIV positive as well.

I agree with and can understand such a law as being good, because if another person gets infected- it is essentially a death sentence, or condemns someone to a life of requiring expensive drug treatments on an annual basis to stave off a death that is inevitable for them. The outcome is still that they'll die far sooner than would've been the case had they not got infected with HIV.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21851
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:30 am

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


Didn’t Israel’s feminists also go nuts when they went to extend rape to covering male victims?

Naturally.

I also remember an American case where a rapist was originally not convicted because he pretended to be a drunk and halfasleep girls boyfriend - and local laws only called it rape if one impersonated ones spouse.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Samadhi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1562
Founded: Sep 24, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Samadhi » Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:32 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Samadhi wrote:
Didn’t Israel’s feminists also go nuts when they went to extend rape to covering male victims?

Naturally.

I also remember an American case where a rapist was originally not convicted because he pretended to be a drunk and halfasleep girls boyfriend - and local laws only called it rape if one impersonated ones spouse.


Laws are shit defend yourself
/cocks gun I wish I had
18 and female
Voluntaryist.
Enjoys watching social democrats act like authoritarian hell states are that much worse than them.
It's all slavery baby.
Proud cat mum, I love Snowy and Hijinks.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19774
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Alvecia » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:46 am

Rojava Free State wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote: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 ;)

*ba dum tiss*
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1708
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:23 am

Ethel mermania wrote:I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.


The victim is a fucking moron. Who goes around having unprotected sex with men they pick up on dating websites? And then trusts him, after he says he has a vasectomy? She brought that shit on herself.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:06 am

Galloism wrote:...
Why are rape prosecutions falling?
Forced penetration: If a woman forces a man to have sex, is that rape?
BBC Action Line: Information and support regarding sexual abuse and violence
Ms Russell has a problem with the vasectomy and contraceptive pill comparison. "With issues around contraception and pregnancy, it's the woman whose body and life and health is affected by that kind of lie," she said. "That is not in any way comparing like for like, because it's a woman who has to deal with the consequences of pregnancy and termination, and, in the example given, the impacts on the man are not of a comparable kind."

But Ms Paul is not so sure. "The issue is the extent to which the lie vitiates (negates) consent," she said. "If a man finds himself a father of a child under these circumstances, there are all sorts of consequences that flow from that ...


The bolded part, so much this.
The difference in the severity of the effects on the victim's life may be only the cause for a different length of the jail sentence or for a different amount of reparation - and that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis: the crime PER SE - that is, sex without a legally-valid consent - still exists.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
James_xenoland
Envoy
 
Posts: 350
Founded: May 31, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby James_xenoland » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:27 pm

Greed and Death wrote:
James_xenoland wrote: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.

I meant within the context/logic of this case. If we were talking lies about using a condom, then maybe it might be a little different.. But this is literally the same as lying about being on BC. A very dangerous precedent.
One either fights for something, or falls for nothing.
One either stands for something, or falls for anything.

---
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

---
Rikese wrote:From a 14 year old saying that children should vote, to a wankfest about whether or not God exists. Good job, you have all achieved new benchmarks in stupidity.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7103
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:22 pm

I oppose premarital sex and hook-up culture.

When you engage in premarital sex, you open yourself up to all kinds of risky situations that are rife with dangerous emotions. Getting married is the start of a truly good and honest relationship between a man and woman.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16699
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cekoviu » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:24 pm

Sundiata wrote:I oppose premarital sex and hook-up culture.

When you engage in premarital sex, you open yourself up to all kinds of risky situations that are rife with dangerous emotions. Getting married is the start of a truly good and honest relationship between a man and woman.

This is just incredibly wrong. Being married doesn't magically decrease risks inherent in having sex with someone, marriage can happen between people other than men and women, and marriages often aren't "truly good and honest." Not to mention that this really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
RWDT - REST IN POWER
David Hume fangirl, massive Tuvaboo, anti-imperialist, and Castroist socialist. Also a sex-negative SWERF, traditionalist SJW, and Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.
/tʃɛ'koʊ.vi:.ju:/ (check-OH-vee-you)

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7103
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:28 pm

Cekoviu wrote:
Sundiata wrote:I oppose premarital sex and hook-up culture.

When you engage in premarital sex, you open yourself up to all kinds of risky situations that are rife with dangerous emotions. Getting married is the start of a truly good and honest relationship between a man and woman.

This is just incredibly wrong. Being married doesn't magically decrease risks inherent in having sex with someone, marriage can happen between people other than men and women, and marriages often aren't "truly good and honest." Not to mention that this really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
It has everything to do with the matter at hand, these unclear situations that people find themselves in are because they're often having sex with people whom they do not love and are not committed to. Our relationships are rife with confusion these days because we've simply abandoned goodness in many respects. Men lying to women for sex is indicative of this hollow state of affairs.
Last edited by Sundiata on Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16699
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cekoviu » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:40 pm

Sundiata wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:This is just incredibly wrong. Being married doesn't magically decrease risks inherent in having sex with someone, marriage can happen between people other than men and women, and marriages often aren't "truly good and honest." Not to mention that this really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
It has everything to do with the matter at hand, these unclear situations that people find themselves in are because they're often having sex with people whom they do not love and are not committed to. Our relationships are rife with confusion these days because we've simply abandoned goodness in many respects. Men lying to women for sex is indicative of this hollow state of affairs.

It really doesn't. If they'd gotten married, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have lied. You're imposing a very dichotomous, idealistic vision on reality that doesn't fit.
RWDT - REST IN POWER
David Hume fangirl, massive Tuvaboo, anti-imperialist, and Castroist socialist. Also a sex-negative SWERF, traditionalist SJW, and Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.
/tʃɛ'koʊ.vi:.ju:/ (check-OH-vee-you)

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7103
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:44 pm

Cekoviu wrote:
Sundiata wrote:It has everything to do with the matter at hand, these unclear situations that people find themselves in are because they're often having sex with people whom they do not love and are not committed to. Our relationships are rife with confusion these days because we've simply abandoned goodness in many respects. Men lying to women for sex is indicative of this hollow state of affairs.

It really doesn't. If they'd gotten married, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have lied. You're imposing a very dichotomous, idealistic vision on reality that doesn't fit.
Reality is stranger than fiction.

You'd be surprised just how strong love can make us.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16699
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cekoviu » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:01 pm

Sundiata wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:It really doesn't. If they'd gotten married, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have lied. You're imposing a very dichotomous, idealistic vision on reality that doesn't fit.
Reality is stranger than fiction.

You'd be surprised just how strong love can make us.

My personal observations have been that marriage doesn't magically make people suddenly wonderful and kind to each other, and can in fact amplify relationship problems when they arise. I'd certainly be surprised if that weren't the case, yes.
RWDT - REST IN POWER
David Hume fangirl, massive Tuvaboo, anti-imperialist, and Castroist socialist. Also a sex-negative SWERF, traditionalist SJW, and Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.
/tʃɛ'koʊ.vi:.ju:/ (check-OH-vee-you)

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:22 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Greed and Death wrote:
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.


If the person changes your mind during sex you stop or its rape.

What you're suggesting is if the person changes their mind afterwards because they got pregnant that it is rape. That really doesn't work.

If I am about to engage in a sex act and I lie and say I am snipped and she consents to unprotected sex, I still do not know she would have not consented but for the lie. Maybe she would have required I wear a condom. maybe she just would have required I pull out, maybe she would have been fine taking her chances or using plan B. I would not know that she conditioned consent on me having a Medical procedure, and in most cases it would be impossible for me to know given how little people discuss the ins and outs of what revokes consent before the activity ?

If I couldn't have known then the prosecutor dang well wont prove the Mens rea.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Gormwood
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14727
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Gormwood » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:21 pm

Rojava Free State wrote:
Saiwania wrote:
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

On the internet especially MGTOW is more Men Griping Tirelessly On Women.
Bloodthirsty savages who call for violence against the Right while simultaneously being unarmed defenseless sissies who will get slaughtered by the gun-toting Right in a civil war.
Breath So Bad, It Actually Drives People Mad

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34480
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Katganistan » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:07 pm

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Andsed wrote:So if a guy who is raped should have to pay child support? That is a pretty messed up idea.

It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Why? He did not want to create it. He was a victim.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:I'd say it straddles the line of rape but I'm not 100% sold on it being sufficiently of the same form to fully qualify.


Why?

Because all parents have a duty to care for their children to the best of their ability.

Being an unwilling donor of genetic material does NOT make someone a parent.
Last edited by Katganistan on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Conexia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: Aug 09, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Conexia » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:09 pm

Katganistan wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:It's not. He still has a duty to help care for his child.

Why? He did not want to create it. He was a victim.

He definitely shouldn't have to pay child support, and the woman who raped him should definitely not have the child.

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34480
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Katganistan » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:10 pm

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
I don't see an issue with that. Even if a child has a right to care, it doesn't have a right to a specific persons care. Orphanages are a thing and should be better funded. Then again I also once argued orphanages should be mandatory.

Orphanages are one thing, but a parent still has the duty to care for the child until custody is transferred.


If they were RAPED, they should never have had custody forced on them.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
I think they meant 'chose to carry out the pregnancy *after* the sex where they earlier didn't consent to pregnancy.'

Yeah, that's not the premise. The basis of the question is the hypothetical situation where a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant (with no deception) and then doesn't accept his fatherhood.

Then you're off topic. It's about sexual deception that results in pregnancy, and whether the deceiver should be charged as a rapist.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
In this case the 'parent' never claimed and explicitly denied custody prior to the child's conception.

There is no custody to transfer because they never had it.

Then that also applies to men who weren't raped.

So consensual=non consensual to you?
Last edited by Katganistan on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 68678
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Katganistan wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Then that also applies to men who weren't raped.

So consensual=non consensual to you?

I mean, we don't make women care for children they created with full consent - even after birth.

Saying men who do not consent to fatherhood should not be bound by it is not a crazy notion, especially since women whether they consent or not we don't force them into parenthood.

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood anyway.
Last edited by Galloism on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34480
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Katganistan » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:24 pm

Meligoland wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:From what I've seen, it is possible to notice.


I didn't say that it was, it was a hypothetical statement.

can we all just agree that its rape if she doesn't tell you she was born a man?

Why?
Is she going to get you pregnant?

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13886
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:27 pm

Greed and Death wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote: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.


If the person changes your mind during sex you stop or its rape.

What you're suggesting is if the person changes their mind afterwards because they got pregnant that it is rape. That really doesn't work.

If I am about to engage in a sex act and I lie and say I am snipped and she consents to unprotected sex, I still do not know she would have not consented but for the lie. Maybe she would have required I wear a condom. maybe she just would have required I pull out, maybe she would have been fine taking her chances or using plan B. I would not know that she conditioned consent on me having a Medical procedure, and in most cases it would be impossible for me to know given how little people discuss the ins and outs of what revokes consent before the activity ?

If I couldn't have known then the prosecutor dang well wont prove the Mens rea.

I am not suggesting that pregnancy after the fact revokes consent. Pregnancy can occur, even when both parties use contraception correctly. The act of getting pregnant does not make it rape.

It is the act of lying about contraception -- if the party would not have consented without the lie -- that makes informed consent impossible. If Party A does not know what they are consenting to (if party B has not had the vasectomy, or has an STD), then there cannot be informed consent. Because that changes the intrinsic nature of the act of sexual intercourse Party A is consenting to and the risks Party A is undertaking.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:39 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Greed and Death wrote:
If the person changes your mind during sex you stop or its rape.

What you're suggesting is if the person changes their mind afterwards because they got pregnant that it is rape. That really doesn't work.

If I am about to engage in a sex act and I lie and say I am snipped and she consents to unprotected sex, I still do not know she would have not consented but for the lie. Maybe she would have required I wear a condom. maybe she just would have required I pull out, maybe she would have been fine taking her chances or using plan B. I would not know that she conditioned consent on me having a Medical procedure, and in most cases it would be impossible for me to know given how little people discuss the ins and outs of what revokes consent before the activity ?

If I couldn't have known then the prosecutor dang well wont prove the Mens rea.

I am not suggesting that pregnancy after the fact revokes consent. Pregnancy can occur, even when both parties use contraception correctly. The act of getting pregnant does not make it rape.

It is the act of lying about contraception -- if the party would not have consented without the lie -- that makes informed consent impossible. If Party A does not know what they are consenting to (if party B has not had the vasectomy, or has an STD), then there cannot be informed consent. Because that changes the intrinsic nature of the act of sexual intercourse Party A is consenting to and the risks Party A is undertaking.


Informed consent is for medical procedures not sex. If I am sleeping with a dumbass who doesn't understand the risk of Pregnancy and STIs it is not rape.

The standard is consent alone, provided the party is of legal age and is not mentally incapacitated.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34480
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Katganistan » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:42 pm

Arkhane wrote: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.

Yeah. Two chefs who did that are in jail for manslaughter.
James_xenoland wrote:
Greed and Death wrote:
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.

I meant within the context/logic of this case. If we were talking lies about using a condom, then maybe it might be a little different.. But this is literally the same as lying about being on BC. A very dangerous precedent.

Why? The consent was not informed. If you admitted you weren't on bc, then the man could decide either to put on a condom or not have sex.

I don't see how it's not equivalent to lying about being infertile, or not having an STI.
Last edited by Katganistan on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13886
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:57 pm

Greed and Death wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I am not suggesting that pregnancy after the fact revokes consent. Pregnancy can occur, even when both parties use contraception correctly. The act of getting pregnant does not make it rape.

It is the act of lying about contraception -- if the party would not have consented without the lie -- that makes informed consent impossible. If Party A does not know what they are consenting to (if party B has not had the vasectomy, or has an STD), then there cannot be informed consent. Because that changes the intrinsic nature of the act of sexual intercourse Party A is consenting to and the risks Party A is undertaking.


Informed consent is for medical procedures not sex. If I am sleeping with a dumbass who doesn't understand the risk of Pregnancy and STIs it is not rape.

The standard is consent alone, provided the party is of legal age and is not mentally incapacitated.

Lying about having an STI is considered Grievous Bodily Harm in the UK -- just for the record.

And informed consent covers sex, too. If consent is not informed, it doesn't count. A person who consents while highly intoxicated is often -- in law -- deemed not to consent, as they did not know what was happening to give informed consent.

Think about it. Why would it informed consent not matter for sex? Like a medical procedure, sex is also something (stripped down to basics) involving risks, involving your body (over which you have bodily sovereignty, to be given up to no-one -- even a long-term partner).

Why is there so much resistance -- in sex only -- to the idea of informed consent?
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Bienenhalde, Conservative Republic Of Huang, Drew Durrnil, Fahran, Greater Miami Shores, New haven america, The Black Forrest, The Lone Alliance, Yuzu China

Advertisement

Remove ads