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

That's right, the government should have no business in the bedroom.

Yet they keep passing all these new wacky feminist-inspired "consent" laws that make the government have business over what exactly happens in the bedroom.

And the definition of "rape" is expanding drastically.

 

You haven't presented ANY evidence of that.

 

Another case of Australia's sexual consent law

Go read about the change in the rape law in the Australian state of Victoria.
A woman no longer needs to say "no" for it to be rape; merely claiming that she did not say "yes" is sufficient grounds for it to be considered rape.

 

Are you suggesting we should do that?

 

No, I am warning that it has already happened in some places, and is leading to issues and situations that are unfair to some men.
Just because the man was not completely without blame in a situation does not mean it should be treated like a rape.

Man does anything to make the woman feel unhappy, the woman can "feel violated" and say she was "raped" afterwards.

Even though the man made a careless mistake and did not think he was seriously violating the woman at the time.

 

If it has nothing to do with gender, then can you please explain to us why you think the woman in the first story was guilty?

Was it the use of a strap-on? Does that by itself create the prerequisite conditions for rape?

You said it's about consent, but consent to what, then?

 

Consent to what was actually being planned - and then carried out.

 

Maybe it should be clarified that the two had met for the purposes of sex (I had thought that went without saying). This wasn't just some guy who pushed himself on a completely random girl.
She never said "no" (she admitted that) but he got convicted of "rape".

Just imagine how easy then it would have been to convict if she had lied about saying "no".
The attitude of this new law sends the message that women can send men to prison if they are not satisfied with the sexual experience.

Even if she decides it was "rape" after the fact.

 

Does this include gender?

 

It doesn't have to do with the deed in question, which is very obviously legal.

It has to do with the deceit. You can't claim you had consent when it was obtained through deceit.

Are you just trying to be salacious? Do you have an anti-LGBTQ agenda?

 

Do you mean deceit about gender? Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify.

 

I think that the deception aspect does create a bit of a spectrum across which some might find it difficult to draw a line to say where rape begins and a disappointing experience ends. That’s why there are judges and juries.

Lying about your gender does qualify as rape because our culture places a lot of importance on same sex vs opposite sex intercourse. Another culture where it is less common to find psychological trauma surrounding same sex intercourse might find more people agreeing that gender doesn’t matter since consent was given. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer here, it’s more about what a culture agrees is important.

Lying about other things will carry different weight. Saying you were a millionaire to bed a woman typically doesn’t result in rape charges because it’s not as traumatizing to have sex with someone who has little money as it might be to have sex with a person of the same gender. The extent of the lie could make a difference though. When someone sets up two families that are unaware of one another the charge isn’t rape but bigamy. If you put someone to sleep you totally cross the line of consent into rape. It’s the ultimate deception since the sleeping party may not even know anything has happened at all.

 

That's the crux of an interesting question. Moreover, is a trans woman (for example) telling the truth when she says she is a woman and then engages in sexual activity with a man who doesn't agree that trans women are women? Is that rape? Is it sexual assault? What if the trans woman is post-op and no longer has a penis but has a constructed ("fake") vagina?

That annoying question "can you define what a woman is" comes up yet again in a legal setting here.

 

They're all completely different. No matter what someone claims in that regard, they remain PHYSICALLY the same person. They are not pretending to be a completely (physically) different person. They are still a male or female, who looks a certain way - the key realities involved in our initial mating preferences.

 

1) It doesn't matter how far the male has gone in his female 'dress ups', he's still male. A fake vagina doesn't change the rape-ness one bit. The lied-to conquest did NOT consent to sex with a male. That's where any 'grey area' starts and ends.

2) Woman: Adult human female.

 

Human sexual preferences are all over the board. Our laws support that.

So, I don't believe you have a point here.

The problem with the scenarios comes down to consent. Had there been consent there would be no issue.

 

I tend to agree with all you wrote above, and I am liberal. But I think a lot of woke liberals would disagree and I bet there are plenty who would say that a post-op trans woman (male genetic code) is a woman and need not divulge "she" was born as a man.

But.. I really think it's wrong for her not to and tantamount to sexual assault. Yet it's actually not unheard of especially with Ladyboys (what they call themselves) in southeast Asia.

 

And more interesting, there is more than one culture within a single society.
Think about how conservative culture is so different from progressive culture in many ways, especially on certain issues of sex, gender and even consent. Then there are many immigrant groups from other cultures.

Should we adjust the application of the law depending what type of culture the victim comes from?

 

I don't know anybody who has said that, and I'm for trans rights. I would guess most would say it needs to be divulged. More of a gray area for me would be somebody with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. They typically don't know they have it until they do not menstruate in teen years. This is a person who was raised a female, looks female, but has a male genetic code. Their body doesn't respond to androgens at all, so they look female since female is the template, not male. Should that person divulge their condition prior to sex?

 

I think a jury of the perpetrator’s peers will pass judgement.

 

As you say, the individual may not know the particulars of their own condition.

I'm not so sure that the situation you describe is a "condition" any more than any other human configuration of brains, genes, and physical characteristics - including the most common ones.

I would suggest that the scenarios in the OP did not require that kind of nuance in evaluating whether a crime occurred.

There wasn't consent to the acts as performed.

Surely that's the end of discussion of those scenarios.

 

What does that mean??
You mean try to find a jury of the perpetrator's peers that all have a similar culture to him/her?

 

That seems like an incredibly weak and vague argument to me, why you are trying to argue trans consent rights are any different from the first story in the opening post.

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding what you were trying to say, but your argument seems to contain no details or logic whatsoever.

Didn't the story about the lesbian who tricked the woman contain a lot of "nuance" too?

 

LOL!!

I guess I'll say it again.

There was no consent to the physical act in either scenario.

Case closed.

All your trans crap is just an attempt to turn this into hate for LGBTQ. And, it is TOTAL BS.

 

There can be no consent, when subterfuge is employed. The male conquest consented to sex with a FEMALE, not a male.