Would you call this rape?

One eyed Jack

wonderfullife wrote: »

If it's not sexual assault or rape but it's also not consent , then what is it?

Crazy town.

Honestly most ridiculous argument I've ever heard in my life.

News flash - people often lie about their age, job, income, marital status, natural hair colour, having children, prior criminal record, prior addiction issues etc etc.

It doesn't "revoke consent". If I have sex with a girl because I believe she used to be a Hollywood film star, and it turns out she wasn't, it makes her a douchebag for lying to me not a sexual offender.

There's still nothing to stop you walking into a Garda station and claiming that you were sexually assaulted or raped. Whether you would be taken seriously or not given the circumstances you've outlined above, is another matter entirely. It wouldn't be up to you to determine what charges (if any) should be brought against the person you accuse of any wrongdoing. That would be a matter for the Gardaí and the DPP.

wonderfullife

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's still nothing to stop you walking into a Garda station and claiming that you were sexually assaulted or raped. Whether you would be taken seriously or not given the circumstances you've outlined above, is another matter entirely. It wouldn't be up to you to determine what charges (if any) should be brought against the person you accuse of any wrongdoing. That would be a matter for the Gardaí and the DPP.

There's nothing to stop me walking into a Garda station and saying an alien from Jupiter's moon Amathea stole my dog either.

Still up to the Guards and DPP to decide what to do.

retro:electro

wonderfullife wrote: »

She QUITE clearly said:

"I don't believe its sexual assault or rape but yes
If she consents to something that's not real then it's not consent."

Use your brilliant comprehension to tell me what that means because in most people's world when you have no consent it is a sexual assault.

Or keep trying to defend her crazy-town view of sexual consent.

It's been explained to you a gazillion times. I doubt me trying one more time would make the penny drop any quicker.

Widdershins

I'm quite confused. Discovering they'd lied about something that had led to your approval of them, might diminish or totally remove your approval of and attraction to them, but there were probably numerous other factors involved in your choice to consent to sex. I'm just struggling to decide whether the discovery of a lie would really amount to more than disappointment. If consent was truly based on just one factor does that imply that consent would be extended to any or all *other* Bentley owners, for example?

wonderfullife

anna080 wrote: »

It's been explained to you a gazillion times. I doubt me trying one more time would make the penny drop any quicker.

It's been explained alright.

She believes someone lying about their car means it was not consent. She also says it's not rape or sexual assault either.

I'm pointing out how stupid that is because no consent = sexual assault.

Penny drop yet?

This might help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

One eyed Jack

wonderfullife wrote: »

There's nothing to stop me walking into a Garda station and saying an alien from Jupiter's moon Amathea stole my dog either.

Still up to the Guards and DPP to decide what to do.

Yep, that's my point - it doesn't matter what anyone outside of a legal context would call it. Social commentary would count for nothing. It would only matter on a case by case basis, depending upon the circumstances of the case, whether a person could be deemed to have committed a crime in the first place, whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute the person if a case could be made (often times because of the nature of the case, it's either determined that a person has no case to answer for, or it just wouldn't be worth prosecuting if a prosecution is unlikely to be successful), and what possible charges could be brought against a person whether it be sexual assault or rape. You would be considered a witness for the prosecution in any potential case.

Mountainsandh

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not though. No matter how shallow or materialistic something may seem people can consent or refuse consent for any number of reasons. If you manipulate that person into changing their mind then you haven't really gained consent.

I disagree strongly Lexie.

You have given consent. You have put your trust in someone, you made that decision to trust someone, and have sex with them.
Consent happened.

There are many situations where we place our trust in someone, and they might let us down. Usually as you said yourself, we chalk it down as a mistake.
Our mistake to trust someone we shouldn't have.
Their guilt at doing something they shouldn't.

They are of course guilty of whatever it is they have decided to do afterwards, and that might be a very bad thing.

But we also have to take responsibility for simply making a decision, acting on it, and finding that our trust was misplaced.

This is why I think when consent is given in such a situation, you cannot say you revoke consent.

Some posters have suggested that it is victim blaming.
I don't think so. I think it's just common sense, **** happens adult acknowledgment.

That the man's actions (ie removing protection) should be sanctioned goes without saying, but it should be sanctioned in its own right, not under the heading of rape.

I'm sorry if this seems harsh to some, I really don't mean this to be incendiary.

wonderfullife

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, that's my point - it doesn't matter what anyone outside of a legal context would call it. Social commentary would count for nothing.

Granted but don't you think it hurts the already muddled waters of sexual assault prosecutions to have posters trying to link lying about what car someone drives to sexual consent?

Lexie can be as shallow as she wants, it's her life, but being lied to over matters like what car, what job, what shoes, what watch someone wears does not revoke consent and it's frankly stupid and dangerous to promote that argument.

She's stated 6 times now her opinion that it does indeed revoke consent.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm quite confused. Discovering they'd lied about something that had led to your approval of them, might diminish or totally remove your approval of and attraction to them, but there were probably numerous other factors involved in your choice to consent to sex. I'm just struggling to decide whether the discovery of a lie would really amount to more than disappointment. If consent was truly based on just one factor does that imply that consent would be extended to any or all *other* Bentley owners, for example?

I don't know because I'm not talking from personal opinion or experience TBH.

But let's just say for example I'm into tall guys with dark hair and a Bentley owner. And I meet this guy and he's average height with red hair but owns a Bentley. You can make up your mind there, well he's not my usual type I mean I'm. Or overly attracted to him but he's got a nice car so I'll sleep with him. His car may have made him more appealing than the other average height redhead behind him. You may not have went anywhere near him only for the fact you believed he had something that attracted you to him. Maybe he knew you wouldn't touch him if you knew the only wheels he had were on his skateboard. That's gaining your consent by manipulating what he knows will result in getting him the ride.

I don't agree that that's how it should be like I wouldn't consider him a sex offender personally but consent wasn't given.

Now for example if she assumed he was a pilot/barrister/Bentley owner but he didn't lead her to believe this (as in it was never brought up because it wasn't relevant) and then she finds out after he wasn't what she thought then it's different, she gave consent he didn't manipulate her. It's completely mad to get into or to argue over but consent is consent and it doesn't matter how shallow her reasons are if she doesn't consent that's it.

One eyed Jack

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This is why I think when consent is given in such a situation, you cannot say you revoke consent.

It's not that anyone is arguing that they should be able to revoke consent, it's that the argument is that consent was never present in the first place. It's a factor in determining whether a person was coerced into giving consent where they wouldn't otherwise have given consent, and it absolutely can be an element of any case involving sexual assault or rape.

Absence of consent isn't the only determining factor in cases of sexual assault or rape, but it's an important one.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I disagree strongly Lexie.

You have given consent. You have put your trust in someone, you made that decision to trust someone, and have sex with them.
Consent happened.

There are many situations where we place our trust in someone, and they might let us down. Usually as you said yourself, we chalk it down as a mistake.
Our mistake to trust someone we shouldn't have.
Their guilt at doing something they shouldn't.

They are of course guilty of whatever it is they have decided to do afterwards, and that might be a very bad thing.

But we also have to take responsibility for simply making a decision, acting on it, and finding that our trust was misplaced.

This is why I think when consent is given in such a situation, you cannot say you revoke consent.

Some posters have suggested that it is victim blaming.
I don't think so. I think it's just common sense, **** happens adult acknowledgment.

That the man's actions (ie removing protection) should be sanctioned goes without saying, but it should be sanctioned in its own right, not under the heading of rape.

I'm sorry if this seems harsh to some, I really don't mean this to be incendiary.

Interesting post on the other side. Can't really argue with it, it's making good points. I don't think it came across as harsh. I don't know if I agree 100% if the person going out of their way to get consent through manipulation has gained actual consent. This goes both ways. If a man has sex with a 16 year old he met in a club (for over 21s let's say) then he should not be in any trouble as he's been manipulated into reasonably believing the woman was over the legal age.

wonderfullife

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But let's just say for example I'm into tall guys with dark hair and a Bentley owner. And I meet this guy and he's average height with red hair but owns a Bentley. You can make up your mind there, well he's not my usual type I mean I'm. Or overly attracted to him but he's got a nice car so I'll sleep with him. His car may have made him more appealing than the other average height redhead behind him. You may not have went anywhere near him only for the fact you believed he had something that attracted you to him. Maybe he knew you wouldn't touch him if you knew the only wheels he had were on his skateboard. That's gaining your consent by manipulating what he knows will result in getting him the ride.

I don't agree that that's how it should be like I wouldn't consider him a sex offender personally but consent wasn't given.

Now for example if she assumed he was a pilot/barrister/Bentley owner but he didn't lead her to believe this (as in it was never brought up because it wasn't relevant) and then she finds out after he wasn't what she thought then it's different, she gave consent he didn't manipulate her. It's completely mad to get into or to argue over but consent is consent and it doesn't matter how shallow her reasons are if she doesn't consent that's it.

Another crazy town post.

So if a guy tells you he is an astronaut for NASA and you have sex with him based on this assurance and you subsequently find out he lied, you would argue "consent wasn't given"?

Honestly you'll stand by your point regardless of what I say but mercifully most sane people will believe your argument is delusional.

Widdershins

wonderfullife wrote: »

Another crazy town post.

So if a guy tells you he is an astronaut for NASA and you have sex with him based on this assurance and you subsequently find out he lied, you would argue "consent wasn't given"?

Honestly you'll stand by your point regardless of what I say but mercifully most sane people will believe your argument is delusional.

I thought the argument was interesting. She's not drafting legislation here, it's only a discussion forum.

wonderfullife

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If a man has sex with a 16 year old he met in a club (for over 21s let's say) then he should not be in any trouble as he's been manipulated into reasonably believing the woman was over the legal age.

Most people would agree with you here but statutory rape is a strict liability offence in most countries.

It doesn't matter if she lied to you or not. She can say she's 21 but if you have sex with her and she's actually 15 or 16 you can be in serious trouble.

The reason deception isn't a factor in the way you want it to be is most people lie about something. It might be trivial or it might be important.

It's subjective to everyone.

For you, someones car or job might be an important factor on you consenting to sex.

For me, if someone snores or bites their nails might be an important factor in me consenting.

We can't just say "consent is revoked" any time someone lies to us. It becomes a complete farce and diminishes the impact on genuine victims.

osarusan

In terms of "I'd never have slept with them if I'd known...." I believe there is no legal position on it, with the exception of (narrowly defined) identity fraud - there was a case a couple of years ago about a woman who created a whole facebook profile of a guy so she could meet a girl (who she convinced to only meet her while blindfolded) and have sex with her.

Apart from that, while people may have their own preferences, I think it doesn't matter legally whether the person you slept with was not actually the Catholic/millionaire/virgin/fellow cat-lover/Capricorn you understood them to be.

the_pen_turner

I'm in two minds. I keep making my mind up then changing it.

if you look at as black and white then if you remove consent for any reason then its rape, it wouldn't matter how shallow or stupid the reason for removing

but it is a very dangerous situation to allow. if you go down the black or white route then the sunglasses and lexies Bentley fetish have to be rape too. that is stupid and will only lead to Huge problems down the road.
we need some kind of cut off point where it is criminal or not

One eyed Jack

wonderfullife wrote: »

Granted but don't you think it hurts the already muddled waters of sexual assault prosecutions to have posters trying to link lying about what car someone drives to sexual consent?

No I don't think it does tbh, I think it's good for people to be able to talk openly and discuss these things. It makes people aware that there are other people out there who have different standards to theirs, so if they feel the need to lie about a part of themselves because they assume a person wouldn't consent to sex otherwise, then they are denying that person informed consent.

For example if a person were to withold the fact that they are transgender, it's they who are responsible for that decision, not the person who chooses to have sex with them, unaware of the fact that they are transgender. It's they who should bear the consequences of their actions, not the victim of their deception.

Lexie can be as shallow as she wants, it's her life, but being lied to over matters like what car, what job, what shoes, what watch someone wears does not revoke consent and it's frankly stupid and dangerous to promote that argument.

She's stated 6 times now her opinion that it does indeed revoke consent.

She has also reiterated numerous times that she wouldn't consider it sexual assault or rape. In Lexie's case at least then, you can relax, knowing that she wouldn't consider making a complaint against someone for being deceived under those circumstances.

wonderfullife

Widdershins wrote: »

I thought the argument was interesting. She's not drafting legislation here, it's only a discussion forum.

True that. Where does it stop?

If I buy into her argument, where do you draw the line at what personal factors are relevant to consent?

For her maybe it's someone lying about their car or job. For me maybe it's someone lying about smoking or drinking.

Where do you draw the line? If simply being lied to is enough to revoke consent then who is to say what the important factors are?

wonderfullife

osarusan wrote: »

Apart from that, while people may have their own preferences, I think it doesn't matter legally whether the person you slept with was not actually the Catholic/millionaire/virgin/fellow cat-lover/Capricorn you understood them to be.

Thankfully.

Floodgates would be wide open if that changed.

Professor Moriarty

I think this discussion has long since passed the point where the DPP would be interested. Bit like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

retro:electro

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I'm in two minds. I keep making my mind up then changing it.

if you look at as black and white then if you remove consent for any reason then its rape, it wouldn't matter how shallow or stupid the reason for removing

but it is a very dangerous situation to allow. if you go down the black or white route then the sunglasses and lexies Bentley fetish have to be rape too. that is stupid and will only lead to Huge problems down the road.
we need some kind of cut off point where it is criminal or not

I think the point where it's considered criminal should be if his negligence is exposing her to serious health risk. So the removal of a condom without her consent in my eyes is considered putting her at a higher degree of risk of a disease or a pregnancy. I think Candie made this point earlier and I'd agree. Removal of sunglasses et al don't impact on her health so shouldn't be considered criminal.