Two different stories about consent and "rape", a paradox

The second story, yes definitely rape.

The first, I would call it more fraud. The woman consented to sexual activity multiple times. Deceit was used as to whom she was having sex with, and how.

Neither one is would be covered under consent.

 

If a husband tells his wife to put a blindfold on and he puts a dildo in her instead of his penis like she thinks he is doing, is that rape?

How about if she doesn't object until after the sex is already over and she finds out later?

 

So why does it seem you did not vote in the poll?

 

WHAT "other side"?

Right now, I'm thinking you may have gotten confused about LGBTQ rights. True?

 

If a trans person does a convincing enough job tricking someone else into thinking they are a different gender, is it rape?

 

Asked and answered by several posters.

Why do you bring up this deception direction in the context of trans persons?

Again, I think you're mixed up about LGBTQ rights or something.

 

Transgender subterfuge is VERY different to lying about your wealth. You're actually portraying yourself as a PHYSICALLY different person. It's the equivalent of blindfolding your conquest, then at the last second replacing yourself with someone you had hiding ready in the closet. It's actually worse than rape (and it's still rape .. 100%), because it involves the additional abuse of suberterfuge.

 

Yes. It's ALWAYS rape if undisclosed. They are not who they are disguised as.

 

Many on the Left will disagree with you.

Or at least I thought they would. They seem to be very quiet in this thread.

It's related to the first story.

I am wondering how you could think one was a consent violation but not the other.

 

You say that as if wealth is the only other possible subterfuge.

There are all sorts of paths of trickery in this - alcohol, claims of holy persons, claims of commitments that don't exist, etc., etc.

Judging which is "worse" is lame. They're all rape.

 

Well excuuuuuse me!

 

Question: If a man loses his wiener in a horrible accident and then has intercourse with a woman using a strap-on without her knowing about it, is that rape?


(He might be too embarrassed to tell her, or afraid she might be reluctant to date him if she knew. I think it might be common for a man in this situation to try to keep it a secret if he can.)


If any of you do not believe that would constitute violation of consent, then how can you believe the first story involved a violation of consent?

It seems the violation in that first story has to either be about gender, or that a strap-on was used. I've presented arguments bringing into question whether either of those are sufficient to make it a rape.

 

Yes, still technically rape, though I think most women wouldn't press charges/report it assuming she consented to having sex in general, though severe forms of rape are also underreported. The "harm" done in the case you just described is going to be lower than somebody lying about their HIV status or stealthing. Maybe they should use that "sexual violation" terminology for less severe forms of rape.

 

Seems to me it depends on under what understanding the blindfold was consented to. I could imagine an understanding in which very little is consented to by consenting to a blindfold, and I could imagine an understanding which allows a dildo and more.

It seems to me consent is something that is given (although sometimes implicitly), not something that is assumed until someone "objects" to something. A violation of consent is a violation of consent, even if it isn't known at the time, just like theft is theft, even if you haven't noticed that your belongings are missing yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can find some grey area if you try long enough.

 

Isn't it true that in both these stories, the woman has already given consent to "sex in general"?

 

That's a mitigating factor compared to, say, holding them at gunpoint, but it's not truly consensual if the consent is misinformed, particularly in an egregious way like being tricked into sex with a fake penis or the opposite gender you thought.

 

How about a man who tricks a woman and gets her into bed with him by telling her he has a 9-incher when he really has a 4 ?

The power conveniently goes out right after he gets her on the bed and the woman can't see.

A black man who tricks a racist white blind woman into having sex with him?

 

Genesis 29:16-25

Joseph is tricked into having sex (and thus consummating the marriage) with the sister of the girl he really wanted to marry.

It was common in those days for brides to wear veils covering their face on their wedding day, and the husband would take the veiled bride into a tent shortly after the wedding to consummate the new marriage. Plenty of wine would also be served to the men at the wedding feast. It would have been dark by the evening, almost no light inside that tent. It would not have been too difficult to perpetrate this deception.

16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel."

19 Laban said, "It's better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me." So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

21 Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to make love to her."

22 So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and brought her to Jacob, and Jacob made love to her. And Laban gave his servant Zilpah to his daughter as her attendant.

25 When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn't I? Why have you deceived me?"

 

lol... I'd say the line is somewhere between those two cases, with the last one being over the line.

 

Replies like this really really really make me wonder whose side you are on

 

The man, mostly.

I'd be willing to give him a little bit of punishment, maybe 9 months in prison, but only because it was anal.

In the old days, there were often sodomy laws that existed, for the purpose of protecting the woman, so that is why the law didn't specifically need to worry about the intricacies of consent here.

 

You just stubbornly refuse to notice that your entire post is about consent.

It has NOTHING to do with gender.

 

Sodomy laws had NOTHING to do with consent.

Read Lawrence v Texas. The sodomy there was consensual. That had nothing to do with the decision by Texas to prosecute.

Read Scallia's tirade concerning the majority opinion.

 

It was about trying to protect the woman from exploitation, since it was assumed she would not like it, and the man would try to push her into it.
(even if not raped, she could be pressured)

It also performed the convenient function of protecting the wife, since at that time it was not seen as illegal for the husband to force other forms of sex on her.

I don't wish to let this debate drift too off topic though. I could debate that in another thread.

 

That's irrelevant. We have NO laws against sodomy, because the government has NO BUSINESS in the bedroom like that - even when such laws appeal to Christians, or whomever, like sodomy laws did.

>>The issue today is consent.

Consenting adults can do what they want. If there ISN'T consent, it's a big problem.