NationStates

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Katganistan wrote:

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

So consensual=non consensual to you?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.