Thread: Stealthing: Some People are Just Shit Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005677
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Had never heard of this vile practice. Stealthing
For those who do not wish to read the link, stealthing is removing a condom during sex without one's partner's knowledge or consent.
Those that do this should have their testicles connected to a car battery.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Certainly not going to argue...
You have those 'alpha' men groups who think women are there to be picked up for their pleasure and run pick-up seminars...not a big stretch to 'men who think it is their “right” to “spread their seed” with every woman they have sex with.' And, again, the Internet helps facilitate these pathetic morons.
Absolutely appalling.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
There was a recent case in NSW where that was held to be rape - consent had been given for 1 act and another was committed. Much the same as allowing a kiss on the cheek and then being groped claiming that all was the same.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I might just have to chalk this up as another one of those things that makes zero sense to me.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Something else for the ever-growing "Selfish and stupid" file.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
stealthing is removing a condom during sex without one's partner's knowledge or consent.
Why would anyone want to do such a thing? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Because some people dislike using them.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Just one of many reasons why I always think young women should never trust anyone but themselves when it comes to birth control. They are the ones with the most to risk and the ones with the most reliable methods.
STD prevention is another story and lying, loser, stealth jerk prevention is still another one.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I'm pretty sure the guys doing these are the same awful manosphere misogynists who also believe that women are out to steal their semen to get deliberately pregnant with a child the man doesn't want and then force him to pay child support forever.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Karl--
It's slipping it off secretly, without the partner's knowledge and consent, that's bad.
Sort of the reverse of what Sweden accused Julian Assange of doing. There, it's illegal to not use a condom, even if the partner fully consents ahead of time. IIRC, it might be considered sexual assault.
I presume that doesn't apply if an opposite-sex couple wants to get pregnant.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm pretty sure the guys doing these are the same awful manosphere misogynists who also believe that women are out to steal their semen to get deliberately pregnant with a child the man doesn't want and then force him to pay child support forever.
No doubt there is some of that, but then there actually have been women who lied about being on the pill.
That's why I think it's not a good idea to call these incidents rape. Would the pill-lying woman be charged with rape and would her victim have to pay child-support to his rapist? They need a new crime called, "stealthing."
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because some people dislike using them.
Sadly I suspect it has little to do with like or dislike and everything to do with over-exposure to certain common forms of pornography.
Without wanting to get too graphic, it is about power and seeing the woman as a used-up sexual object that the testosterone-filled man has been able to overcome.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Sort of the reverse of what Sweden accused Julian Assange of doing. There, it's illegal to not use a condom, even if the partner fully consents ahead of time. IIRC, it might be considered sexual assault.
I think that's very likely an oversimplification otherwise children wouldn't be conceived in Sweden.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why I think it's not a good idea to call these incidents rape. Would the pill-lying woman be charged with rape and would her victim have to pay child-support to his rapist? They need a new crime called, "stealthing."
I think it is fairly clear that it is a form of sexual assault. There are reasons why someone might want to use a condom, if someone has willfully chosen to take it off without the other person knowing then they're doing something that hasn't been consented to in advance.
I'm not sure that is really so far from rape. At very least it is a willful disregard of the other person and forcing them to do something physically that they haven't agreed to - and may not agree to if asked.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why I think it's not a good idea to call these incidents rape. Would the pill-lying woman be charged with rape and would her victim have to pay child-support to his rapist? They need a new crime called, "stealthing."
I think it is fairly clear that it is a form of sexual assault. There are reasons why someone might want to use a condom, if someone has willfully chosen to take it off without the other person knowing then they're doing something that hasn't been consented to in advance.
I'm not sure that is really so far from rape. At very least it is a willful disregard of the other person and forcing them to do something physically that they haven't agreed to - and may not agree to if asked.
It's not so very far from rape, but it's not rape. Ask any woman who has been raped if this is as bad. Why dilute rape into something like this which is wrong and should criminalized, but is a different, lesser crime.
We already have problems with the label, "child sex offender," covering everything from two teens having sex to an old man raping a five year old. The trouble with the same labeled crime covering too broad a spectrum is that then the offender can hope people think he's in the lesser category. Once this law passed, all the convicted rapists could claim it was just a case of a broken rubber.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Karl--
It's slipping it off secretly, without the partner's knowledge and consent, that's bad.
Yeah, I know. I'm just suggesting one possible motivation for it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's not so very far from rape, but it's not rape. Ask any woman who has been raped if this is as bad. Why dilute rape into something like this which is wrong and should criminalized, but is a different, lesser crime.
Wait. Please don't tell me I'm diluting rape. Take that back immediately.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We already have problems with the label, "child sex offender," covering everything from two teens having sex to an old man raping a five year old. The trouble with the same labeled crime covering too broad a spectrum is that then the offender can hope people think he's in the lesser category. Once this law passed, all the convicted rapists could claim it was just a case of a broken rubber.
Nope, because using a condom diligently and having it break is something that happens sometimes and is unfortunate. But it's not the same thing as sneakily taking the thing off deliberately.
Obviously convicted rapists aren't going to be upfront about what led to their conviction. Right now the tiny minority of rapists who actually get convicted generally claim that the lying bitch wanted it anyway and then cried rape after. And a good number of people think that about every single rape anyway. This is why we don't base laws on "what the criminal will say actually happened".
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that's very likely an oversimplification otherwise children wouldn't be conceived in Sweden.
As I recall, in the Assange case, the allegation is that at least one woman consented to sex with a condom, but Assange didn't wear one. It's basically the same as "stealthing" - consent to condom-sex does not imply consent to nocondom-sex.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape.
Just so long as you apply the same standard to a woman who lies about being on the pill, or who stops using the pill without telling her partner because she wants a baby but he doesn't.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just so long as you apply the same standard to a woman who lies about being on the pill, or who stops using the pill without telling her partner because she wants a baby but he doesn't.
Not sure whether those are quite the same. (Genuinely not sure.)
The condom is part of the sex. You can consent, or not, to any particular sexual practice, and consent to one doesn't imply consent to another.
The pill, the fact that you've had a vasectomy or tubal ligation - these things are not part of the sex, although they obviously alter the potential consequences of the sex.
But are they any different from "I really love you", "Yes, I'll marry you", "I'm leaving my spouse" or any of the other lies that people tell to gain sex?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The pill, the fact that you've had a vasectomy or tubal ligation - these things are not part of the sex, although they obviously alter the potential consequences of the sex.
But are they any different from "I really love you", "Yes, I'll marry you", "I'm leaving my spouse" or any of the other lies that people tell to gain sex?
Yes, if a pregnancy occurs. Suddenly it's not a roll in the hay, it's a child (unless you abort).
If I ever found out I'd been "stealthed" (VERY unlikely these days!), I'd be tempted to ask in all innocence afterwards, "Oh, didn't I tell you about my STD/HIV/Herpes (or whatever)?" There are risks to the scumbag male as well.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Pigwidgeon
Who is to say the other lies do not lead to pregnancy? I refer you to the definition of informed consent. It is important as without being properly informed a person cannot give consent.
I am going to exit now as I am not sure I can engage helpfully further than this.
Jengie
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
You're right rape is rape. All those conditions you named, the woman was asleep, the woman was drunk, are rape because the definition of rape is intercourse without consent.
The man in the stealth situation does not fit the definition of rape because he had consent for intercourse.
He did not have consent about the birth control/ disease prevention issue, but that's another issue.
It's exactly the same as the woman who says she has an IUD when she doesn't. In both situations they have agreed to a certain condition of one person's body that turns out to be a lie, but that isn't rape. He didn't get raped if she had a disease she didn't tell him about, either.
This deliberate stealthing should be against the law and may already be covered under some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, but it isn't rape. The couple consented to have sex. If some part of the sex act was not as promised that makes him a liar but not a rapist.
You do dilute the definition of rape if you try to call all less than pre-planned conditions, "rape," after intercouse has been consented to. What next? He promised me an orgasm and I didn't have one, so it was not the sort of sex I consented to, so it was rape?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There is a reasonable discussion to be had without that slippery slope bullshit.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
The slippery slope bullshit was started by the person I was answering, with all that inference that if I didn't think this was rape then I must be one of those people who think sex with a drunk woman isn't rape. "Right?" Of course anyone who disagrees with the L person is subject to being accused of saying all sorts of things he/she clearly did not say.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wait. Please don't tell me I'm diluting rape. Take that back immediately.
I don't know what you look like, Mr. Cheesy, but whenever you say something like that I picture
this guy.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
You're right rape is rape. All those conditions you named, the woman was asleep, the woman was drunk, are rape because the definition of rape is intercourse without consent.
The man in the stealth situation does not fit the definition of rape because he had consent for intercourse.
He did not have consent about the birth control/ disease prevention issue, but that's another issue.
It's exactly the same as the woman who says she has an IUD when she doesn't. In both situations they have agreed to a certain condition of one person's body that turns out to be a lie, but that isn't rape. He didn't get raped if she had a disease she didn't tell him about, either.
This deliberate stealthing should be against the law and may already be covered under some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, but it isn't rape. The couple consented to have sex. If some part of the sex act was not as promised that makes him a liar but not a rapist.
You do dilute the definition of rape if you try to call all less than pre-planned conditions, "rape," after intercouse has been consented to. What next? He promised me an orgasm and I didn't have one, so it was not the sort of sex I consented to, so it was rape?
Liopleurodon is on the wrong side of this. Twilight has it right.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just so long as you apply the same standard to a woman who lies about being on the pill, or who stops using the pill without telling her partner because she wants a baby but he doesn't.
Not sure whether those are quite the same. (Genuinely not sure.)
The condom is part of the sex. You can consent, or not, to any particular sexual practice, and consent to one doesn't imply consent to another.
Yes. So surely one can consent to a non-procreative sexual practice without implying consent to a procreative one.
(within the known limitations of contraception, of course)
quote:
The pill, the fact that you've had a vasectomy or tubal ligation - these things are not part of the sex, although they obviously alter the potential consequences of the sex.
I think considering only the physical presence of a condom without also considering the reason for it being worn is unnecessarily reductionistic.
quote:
But are they any different from "I really love you", "Yes, I'll marry you", "I'm leaving my spouse" or any of the other lies that people tell to gain sex?
Good question. The way things are going, the legality of lying for sex is something that society is going to have to decide on fairly soon.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
It is, perhaps, at least serious sexual assault; in that the woman has consented to have sex, but not the kind of sex she ends up having imposed upon her unbeknown. And legally, too, it could potentially be the thinnest of lines between that and easily identifiable rape.
Obtaining sex by deception is an offence for which people have been imprisoned, and it is possible that stealthing could come under this kind of heading. I believe it's a live issue in some countries as to whether it should be considered as actual rape.
In a recent documentary a young woman, in the UK, found out her 'boyfriend', with whom she had (somehow) had penetrative sex discovered that 'he' was a woman. At the time of the intimacy she was fine; but learning the truth of the circumstances under which she'd given herself she was devastated. She wasn't forced to have sex, but neither did she consent to have sex with a woman. The 'boyfriend' was convicted of obtaining sex by deception - can't remember if there was a prison sentence. But the young woman undoubtedly felt seriously violated in the most physically intimate fashion, even given the offence was in the past and she was unconscious of it at the time.
It could be argued that with stealthing, a woman isn't being forced, but neither is she consenting to have unprotected sex. The 'contract', for want of a better word, is false. And her trust, at least, is being violated; and maybe even, consequently, her reproductive choices and sexual health. Does rape have to include a particular measurable degree of sexual physical violation; and if so how are those particulars defined and to which degree?
I don't know if the strict legal definition of rape would include stealthing; I'm not even sure if it should. But it would appear that a good argument could be made for it.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Putting fluids into a persons body without their consent is surely abuse or assault.
"Oh you have put your cum into my body? Well, that cup of tea I made you also have unwanted fluids in it. Oh and the milk, isn't."
I think people who do this should have "RAPIST" branded onto their penis. Each time. And if they run out of space there, use their scrotum.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
I suppose that being on the outside looking in - I was operating under old rules - "STAY THE HELL AWAY AT ALL COSTS!".
Took a long time to understand this granular consent model; I had to crossmatch it to aviation or firewall security in my head... as i had been brought up with the old waterfall model...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm going to say that I consider it rape. Consenting to sex with a condom does not mean you consented to sex without. Sex without consent is rape. It's rape in the same way that it's rape if you agreed to make out with someone but weren't up for sex and then they went ahead with sex anyway.
It doesn't "dilute" the offense. What DOES dilute it, or rather minimises the harm done, is when people try to issue these endless gradations and distinctions as to how bad they think an act of rape is. Is it better or worse if the rapist is your partner? Is it better or worse if the victim is drunk? It's no big deal, really, if the guy starts fucking you when you're asleep, right? Right?
Wrong. Rape is rape. It's the correct term for all situations in which someone goes ahead and has sex with someone who didn't consent. It's always a big deal. Some rapes will be more traumatic than others, just as some thefts cause more damage than others, but we don't shy away from calling something theft whether it's stealing a painting worth millions, or nicking a couple of quid from your mum's purse. Because that's the correct term for taking something that isn't yours.
You're right rape is rape. All those conditions you named, the woman was asleep, the woman was drunk, are rape because the definition of rape is intercourse without consent.
The man in the stealth situation does not fit the definition of rape because he had consent for intercourse.
He did not have consent about the birth control/ disease prevention issue, but that's another issue.
It's exactly the same as the woman who says she has an IUD when she doesn't. In both situations they have agreed to a certain condition of one person's body that turns out to be a lie, but that isn't rape. He didn't get raped if she had a disease she didn't tell him about, either.
This deliberate stealthing should be against the law and may already be covered under some sort of fraud or misrepresentation, but it isn't rape. The couple consented to have sex. If some part of the sex act was not as promised that makes him a liar but not a rapist.
You do dilute the definition of rape if you try to call all less than pre-planned conditions, "rape," after intercouse has been consented to. What next? He promised me an orgasm and I didn't have one, so it was not the sort of sex I consented to, so it was rape?
Liopleurodon is on the wrong side of this. Twilight has it right.
Not in my view. Informed consent is the issue here, and the consent is not informed if one party is deliberately lying, especially since were the truth known consent might not have been received.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Surely its the equivalent of those women (and they do exist) who assure their partner they're taking the contraceptive pill but who don't, or condom piercers.
Is 'stealthing' rape then? No, but is is definitely assault and fraud.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Surely its the equivalent of those women (and they do exist) who assure their partner they're taking the contraceptive pill but who don't, or condom piercers.
With regard to the pill, I don't think it's the same thing. The man isn't going to get pregnant, and his body isn't going to have to literally bear the consequences of his partner's deception, however distressing it may be to find out he's unintentionally become a dad. However, his sexual health is certainly compromised in a way he isn't consenting to, if she secretly pierces their condoms.
Frankly, I wish there was a greater lobby (not necessarily a religious one, mind you!) advocating abstinence to the degree that it becomes normative to really - really - get to know someone well enough before you let them shag you. It wouldn't solve every case of stealthing, of course. But these days 99 times out of 100, whenever one hears of people being abused in some seriously violent way by their partners it seems to follow a pattern of 'we met in January and six weeks later we moved in together.....'.
I guess I'm just old fashioned.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I guess I'm just old fashioned.
I don't think you are, I think many young women are not so happy with the pressure young men put on them for a shag.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
...and not only young women ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll get me coat and go out to the shed before the missus tells me to.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
If it helps, in Canada the legal codes have not for a good long while recognized "rape". More appropriately, there is a crime called "sexual assault" (or maybe just "assault"). Most of what this thread is arguing about is whether certain acts are "rape" or not, and then about how one defines rape. In Canada, at least, that's a meaningless and pointless discussion. The act in question (and most of the other acts mentioned) is clearly "assault", which is all the courts really need to know.
John
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I don't know about that, John Holding. I think the same arguments that say this is not rape would say this is not assault. An assault is a physical attack. Lying about the conditions of the sex act (saying you are not married when you are, saying you're on the pill when you aren't, stealthing) all break the verbal contract. It seems more like a form of fraud to me.
Fraud definition:wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Ejaculation - whether into a tissue or a vagina or another orifice - is a physical act.
ETA: And damaging / removing the condom so as to allow ejaculation into an orifice is also a physical act.
[ 29. April 2017, 20:33: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
An assault is a physical attack.
Nope.
quote:
"An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
An assault is a physical attack.
Nope.
quote:
"An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."
In which case having sex with an unconscious person is not an assault. So it can't be sexual assault, which is presumably a type of assault. I assume it's not legal in Canada. So how do they prosecute it?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.
In the case of an unconscious person, they haven't consented to being touched.
(edited because I misunderstood the question)
[ 29. April 2017, 21:01: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Ejaculation - whether into a tissue or a vagina or another orifice - is a physical act.
ETA: And damaging / removing the condom so as to allow ejaculation into an orifice is also a physical act.
Physical act. Physical attack. Two different things. As far as I know there are no laws against physical acts.
Doc Tor may come up with one.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.
Very interesting. We were just discussing this on a "PreviouslyTV" forum for "Better Call Saul." Jimmy broke into his brother's house and shouted at him for awhile. His brother is charging him with breaking and entering and assault and none of us could understand where the assault part came in. My dictionary just defines it as, "a physical attack," but obviously the law is different.
Does this mean I can charge Mr. Cheesy with assault for demanding that I take things back immediately?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Does this mean I can charge Mr. Cheesy with assault for demanding that I take things back immediately?
No.
Hostly furry hat on
And for very good Ship reasons, suggesting that you might take legal action against another Shipmate will end up with this thread locked faster than a very quick thing.
Hostly furry hat off
So I'm going to pretend this was an entirely innocent question, with no intent behind it, and we'll leave it there.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I'll admit it, it was not an innocent question. It was a joke. I thought that was obvious.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
We're a bit trigger-happy about that particular problem back-stage, because of the problems it can cause the Ship. So we don't joke about it.
(Follow ups in Styx, please, but otherwise, no harm, no foul)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There is some false equivalence going on here.
Lying to a man about using the pill is not the same as stealthing.
Stealthing can transmit disease and cause pregnancy to the victim. Physical and long-lasting effects to a woman's body and finances.
Lying about the using the pill only has only consequences to a man's wallet. Yes, a man might care more, but he is not obligated to.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Women have other choices, too, like the morning after pill taken during the sober light of day.
The man who has been lied to may not even know it until the day the baby is born and some do care very much about a child of theirs being brought into the world over whom he will have no control but lots of financial obligations.
I knew a married couple who had two children. He worked as a store manager and she was a SAHM. She wanted a third child, he definitely did not because he thought they couldn't afford it. She deliberately went off the pill without telling him and had a third child. They stayed married, but barely spoke to each other for almost a year. ( I worked in the store and saw the big freeze going on.) The children suffered, particularly the new baby.
I think it's always a rotten thing to do to lie about this sort of thing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know about that, John Holding. I think the same arguments that say this is not rape would say this is not assault. An assault is a physical attack. Lying about the conditions of the sex act (saying you are not married when you are, saying you're on the pill when you aren't, stealthing) all break the verbal contract. It seems more like a form of fraud to me.
Fraud definition:wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
I find it fascinating how much effort you're putting into being an amateur lawyer while ignoring what at least one actual lawyer said before you started.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I know you're a lawyer, Orfeo. That's it. I don't know who any of the other lawyers on the ship are.
As soon as Doc Tor came along with a legal definition of "assault," I said it was interesting information and admitted I had only been using the dictionary definition.
I didn't know a law degree was required here. I thought we were all just sharing our opinions and anecdotes related to the OP. But then I thought it was okay to yank Mr. Cheesy's chain a little bit, this being Hell. Clearly I was wrong on both counts.
I'll just bow out now.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If it helps, in Canada the legal codes have not for a good long while recognized "rape". More appropriately, there is a crime called "sexual assault" (or maybe just "assault"). Most of what this thread is arguing about is whether certain acts are "rape" or not, and then about how one defines rape. In Canada, at least, that's a meaningless and pointless discussion. The act in question (and most of the other acts mentioned) is clearly "assault", which is all the courts really need to know.
John
Strictly speaking, that's the case in NSW, although I can't speak for the other states. The relevant division of the Crimes Act is now entitled "Division 10 Offences in the nature of rape, offences relating to other acts of sexual assault etc" but the actual offences are sexual assault with a suitably wide definition of what constitutes sexual intercourse - it's not just penis in vagina. Judges sentence on the basis of what constituted the particular assault though. Generally speaking, an offence where the penetration was digital alone will received a lower penalty than cunnilingus. In turn, forced fellatio will receive a higher penalty still, with the highest for penile penetration. That's just a general guide, individual cases will obviously differ.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought we were all just sharing our opinions and anecdotes related to the OP.
Well, that's certainly not what you were doing. You were busy telling everyone else how to define rape and assault.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.
Very interesting. We were just discussing this on a "PreviouslyTV" forum for "Better Call Saul." Jimmy broke into his brother's house and shouted at him for awhile. His brother is charging him with breaking and entering and assault and none of us could understand where the assault part came in. My dictionary just defines it as, "a physical attack," but obviously the law is different.
It's a distinction made in common law:
Assault - an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Battery - an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
That distinction is what I was taught in Law School all those decade ago, but it's not always observed as much these days, particularly in criminal law.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If I were a female who wanted to enjoy an active, varied sex life with various different guys, I would take precautions against unwanted pregnancy other than trusting the guy to --
a) fit the condom properly in the first place
b) do something peculiar mid way through intercourse, as in discarding it
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
And if I had an expensive road bike I'd not trust the garage door lock, but someone breaking in and nicking it would still be a thief.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Yep, ain't excusing it Karl.
Like the female judge said recently, (something a male could not have said without being heavily criticised), -- you have to weigh up the risks before getting into situations where this kind of crap can happen.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If I were a female who wanted to enjoy an active, varied sex life with various different guys, I would take precautions against unwanted pregnancy other than trusting the guy to --
a) fit the condom properly in the first place
b) do something peculiar mid way through intercourse, as in discarding it
Absolutely - but this is not just about contraception, is it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.
In the case of an unconscious person, they haven't consented to being touched.
(edited because I misunderstood the question)
But the definition was being used in such a way as to need to be exclusive to make the argument work.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No, it's about lying -- fraud. You would think that the man involved would also consider the burdens of child support, but people like this do not seem to use the Big Brain for thinking. (You have heard the theory that all men have a Big Brain and a Little Brain.)
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
...do we want to be saying 'all men' any more than we might wish to be saying 'all women'? Just asking...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
...do we want to be saying 'all men' any more than we might wish to be saying 'all women'? Just asking...
And the woman's "little brain" is even smaller than the man's "little brain." <GD&R>
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It's not my notion. It was the late great Robin Williams who pronounced this theory. He made it very funny, as you can imagine -- you can probably google it up on YouTube.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If I were a female who wanted to enjoy an active, varied sex life with various different guys, I would take precautions against unwanted pregnancy other than trusting the guy to --
a) fit the condom properly in the first place
b) do something peculiar mid way through intercourse, as in discarding it
Absolutely - but this is not just about contraception, is it?
If it is also about avoiding STI's then he is putting himself at risk as well as her by being careless or reckless with said condom. But yeah, if he deliberately infects her then it is covered by the law, (or is that just for HIV? ).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If it is also about avoiding STI's then he is putting himself at risk as well as her by being careless or reckless with said condom. But yeah, if he deliberately infects her then it is covered by the law, (or is that just for HIV? ).
That's hardly a consolation though is it? "Well yeah he gave me HIV/Herpes/the clap, but at least he went to jail for it."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think it's always a rotten thing to do to lie about this sort of thing.
Any bad thing is, well, bad.
Stealthing is more like rape because it is about control. At least that appears to be the main motive when reading about these pieces of shit.
I really hate when an issue like this is raised and the cries of "But what about the men?" appear.
Any individual act is just as bad as similar individual act. But the phenomena are not equal.
Where is the culture of women getting pregnant against their partner's wishes? The reddit threads, the how-to manuals, etc.? This is another tactic, intentional and not, to reduce women achieving the power that men enjoy.
It is the exact same thing that is used when racism is discussed.
Counter examples =/= a systemic problem in the reverse direction or an equality of experience.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think it's always a rotten thing to do to lie about this sort of thing.
Any bad thing is, well, bad.
Stealthing is more like rape because it is about control. At least that appears to be the main motive when reading about these pieces of shit.
I really hate when an issue like this is raised and the cries of "But what about the men?" appear.
Any individual act is just as bad as similar individual act. But the phenomena are not equal.
Where is the culture of women getting pregnant against their partner's wishes? The reddit threads, the how-to manuals, etc.? This is another tactic, intentional and not, to reduce women achieving the power that men enjoy.
It is the exact same thing that is used when racism is discussed.
Counter examples =/= a systemic problem in the reverse direction or an equality of experience.
I agree that the line you quoted was silly, but as conversations like this go along I feel I have to tack such obvious things on the post to keep from ending up the way Rolyn just did, with lots of people asking him questions that force him to have to come back and state the obvious, like yes the thief is still a thief or being asked questions about things he hadn't mentioned at all, as though that's the perfect zinger to his position.
Control? Maybe, or maybe it's just a selfish, drunk guy wanting maximum comfort in the moment.
I don't agree that men always have the most control in interpersonal relations. I think the person who controls the best forms of birth control, and in the case of a single woman, the decision about abortion, the decision about adoption, and whether or not to name the man as the father also has a lot of control.
I do think you have hit on why we disagree so much about issues like this. My main concern is usually equality; equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal treatment under the law, etc. That's why I bring up similar crimes with the female as the protagonists, not because I'm concerned about the poor man as you imply, but because it helps me try to figure out what we should call this and what I think the punishment should be. (Yes, yes I know, some lawyers have already figured it all out for me and I should just think what they tell me to think, but I like to pretend I can have opinions of my own, even if they are meaningless in the great halls of justice.)
On the other hand, I think you want something other than equality and I'm not sure what it is. Greater punishment of the traditional oppressor as a means of compensating for the past? Greater punishment of men because they have the most obnoxious websites?
I really don't understand a position that seems to want to punish one gender or race more than another. Not just because it seems unfair to me, but because it seems unfair to thousands of other people and that just generates more hate and anger.
[ 30. April 2017, 19:31: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's hardly a consolation though is it? "Well yeah he gave me HIV/Herpes/the clap, but at least he went to jail for it."
Consolation is a large part of what the penal system is about isn't it? It can't undo what's been done.
As Twilight says regarding stating the obvious. The obvious, although given modern day freedoms not popular, solution to this latest phenomenon is not to sleep around.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I'm not the only one who wants everything to be fair.
Simple brains like mine.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is some false equivalence going on here.
Lying to a man about using the pill is not the same as stealthing.
Stealthing can transmit disease and cause pregnancy to the victim. Physical and long-lasting effects to a woman's body and finances.
Lying about the using the pill only has only consequences to a man's wallet. Yes, a man might care more, but he is not obligated to.
Whether sex without consent is rape has absolutely nothing to do with the specific consequences of the specific act. A completely disease-free man who wears a condom while having unconsensual sex is still a rapist.
Rape is not about consequences, it's about consent - or more accurately, the lack thereof.
So the next question is whether consent can be conditional. I think it can. And that said, if a woman can consent to sex only on the condition that a condom is worn - which again, I think she can - then why can't a man consent to sex only if it is non-procreational?
So if consent to sex can be conditional, then it doesn't matter what the consequences of that condition not being met are, all that matters is that the conditions for consent were not present. So therefore consent was not present. So therefore the sex, being without consent, was rape.
If there's an error in my logic do please feel free to point it out. But note that "if a woman does it its fine but if a man does it its evil, because history and oppression and yadda yadda" isn't a logical error. Not in my logic, anyway.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's hardly a consolation though is it? "Well yeah he gave me HIV/Herpes/the clap, but at least he went to jail for it."
Consolation is a large part of what the penal system is about isn't it? It can't undo what's been done.
I thought it was justice. If it's just consolation then it doesn't matter whom you find guilty and kill, as long as the victim or the victim's family feels consoled. But as I said, it ISN'T a consolation to get AIDS but have the person who gave you AIDS go to jail. How in the hell would that console you? It's a category error.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lying to a man about using the pill is not the same as stealthing.
Stealthing can transmit disease and cause pregnancy to the victim. Physical and long-lasting effects to a woman's body and finances.
Lying about the using the pill only has only consequences to a man's wallet. Yes, a man might care more, but he is not obligated to.
Rape isn't a crime because it might cause pregnancy. I'm sure if you try hard, you can imagine some (far-fetched, admittedly) ways of impregnating someone without any kind of sexual contact being involved. That's not rape.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So the next question is whether consent can be conditional. I think it can. And that said, if a woman can consent to sex only on the condition that a condom is worn - which again, I think she can - then why can't a man consent to sex only if it is non-procreational?
So if consent to sex can be conditional, then it doesn't matter what the consequences of that condition not being met are, all that matters is that the conditions for consent were not present. So therefore consent was not present. So therefore the sex, being without consent, was rape.
If there's an error in my logic do please feel free to point it out. But note that "if a woman does it its fine but if a man does it its evil, because history and oppression and yadda yadda" isn't a logical error. Not in my logic, anyway.
I suppose the problem here is that one cannot guarantee that vaginal sex is non-procreative.
As an analogue, I might say that I am consenting to be driven in your car as long as you are not drunk. If you have actually drunk alcohol but have been able to hide it, then you're deceiving me and impairing my decision about whether to drive with you.
But I can't very easily say that I'm not consenting to get in the car with you if we are involved in an accident on the basis that I later say indignantly "well, I didn't consent to being in an accident!" Being in an accident is part and parcel of the risk of driving.
I agree that there it is a different case of the woman is intending to get pregnant but the partner does not want it - but human bodies are not simple machines and one doesn't just get pregnant because one wants to. She might have been able to tip the odds in favour of pregnancy in one way or the other, but at the end of the day pregnancy is almost always going to be a risk of sex unless other factors are in play which reduce the risk.
On the other hand, I suppose there is a difference if the woman says she is on the pill. I'm not sure how to deal with that eventuality in the above.
[ 01. May 2017, 06:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As an analogue, I might say that I am consenting to be driven in your car as long as you are not drunk. If you have actually drunk alcohol but have been able to hide it, then you're deceiving me and impairing my decision about whether to drive with you.
But I can't very easily say that I'm not consenting to get in the car with you if we are involved in an accident on the basis that I later say indignantly "well, I didn't consent to being in an accident!" Being in an accident is part and parcel of the risk of driving.
That analogy is actually good support for my argument, if one considers only wanting to be driven by someone sober as analogous to only wanting sex if the woman is on the pill, and an accident as analogous to pregnancy.
Pregnancy/accident isn't guaranteed if the person is lying about being on the pill/sober, but it is made considerably more likely. To the point where consent to participate would be seriously compromised, even if no pregnancy/accident occurs.
Similarly, there's no absolute guarantee that pregnancy/accident won't happen even if the person is telling the truth. But they are sufficiently unlikely that the consent would remain valid even if they happen.
Of course, since we're talking about informed consent it doesn't actually matter if accident/pregnancy occurs or not. The fact remains that one person has conned the other into participating by lying about a key requirement of the other person's consent to participate. And that's not ok.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I thought it was justice. If it's just consolation then it doesn't matter whom you find guilty and kill, as long as the victim or the victim's family feels consoled. But as I said, it ISN'T a consolation to get AIDS but have the person who gave you AIDS go to jail. How in the hell would that console you? It's a category error.
Afraid I have to confess to not knowing what the fuck you are on about.
The Law is there to protect people the best it can as a deterrent, it cannot stop people being fuckwits in the first place. OK, if there is some new legal definition is needed for jerks de-jonnying mid intercourse then create one.
No one is suggesting locking up every Tom, Dick an Harry willy nilly (pun intended)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, since we're talking about informed consent it doesn't actually matter if accident/pregnancy occurs or not. The fact remains that one person has conned the other into participating by lying about a key requirement of the other person's consent to participate. And that's not ok.
It may well not be ok, but I don't think it is the same scenario as the one being discussed in the OP.
For one thing, a prophylactic isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it is also about reducing the spread of STDs. So a man who removes it is exposing the woman to a risk of disease that they hadn't consented to.
A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny. The burden of the pregnancy and bringing up the child is very largely going to fall on the woman.
It is more complex if this happens within a marriage or long-term relationship, and I can imagine that the man would have to take some kind of legal responsibility for any resulting children - but that still seems to me to be a different thing.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny. The burden of the pregnancy and bringing up the child is very largely going to fall on the woman.
In America, in most such cases the majority of the financial burden is placed on the government. As part of the government's effort to reduce costs to the taxpayer, the woman is asked to name the father if she can.
He is then given a DNA test and if he does prove to be the father he is responsible for child support and heath care expenses for the next 18 years.
An order to pay child support is enforceable by contempt and failure to pay can mean jail time.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
What an odd place the USA must be, that women aren't allowed jobs and earn their own money to support their family, and must be reliant on the state for their every need.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
They are allowed to get jobs and earn their own money but childcare is very expensive and often takes almost all that the minimum wage mother earns. Leaving little or no money left over for rent or food.
That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.
This can often be best for the child since he has his mother at home during those first three years that the childcare experts thinks are most important.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Geez, Twilight, you're making so many unwarranted assumptions here, I'm surprised the weight of them hasn't dragged you inside the event horizon.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Name a few.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.
I wonder how many people this paragraph actually applies to; how many mothers have actually sat down and determined that they'd be better off financially by having a child because the state would pay for it.*
I suspect despite the shit that conservatives like to believe, it is actually at or near none.
Yes, there are some who are reckless and there are some who think their lives would be better by having children. But it is very hard to believe there are armies these women, who apparently have insufficient education to enable them to get work to support themselves, somehow magically are able to crunch the numbers to determine that there is a financial benefit in having a child because the state will pay.
Bullshit.
* I don't believe there is any mother anywhere in the USA or UK who is actually better off having a child because they can claim extra benefits unless they're committing fraud. The whole point of the benefits is that it is meant to support the child not the mother.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.
I wonder how many people this paragraph actually applies to; how many mothers have actually sat down and determined that they'd be better off financially by having a child because the state would pay for it.*
That isn't what that paragraph says. It's talking about a calculation AFTER the fact of the pregnancy.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Even if you argue that -some- women are grifters, this cannot permit treating -all- women that way. Some men are murderers, but we cannot jail them all.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If there's an error in my logic do please feel free to point it out. But note that "if a woman does it its fine but if a man does it its evil, because history and oppression and yadda yadda" isn't a logical error. Not in my logic, anyway.
Solid logic =/= solid conclusion. Making a logical case only ,means you are consistent within the parameters used. Your problem here is one you typically have and that is isolation.
Consent is the condition upon which we judge whether something is rape or not, but rape is about []power[/i].
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Control? Maybe, or maybe it's just a selfish, drunk guy wanting maximum comfort in the moment.
And forcible rape is just about horny men?
quote:
I don't agree that men always have the most control in interpersonal relations.
This isn't about relationships, this is about a behaviour.
quote:
I do think you have hit on why we disagree so much about issues like this. My main concern is usually equality; equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal treatment under the law, etc.
As am I. This is why I highlight the massive inequities, not the occasional exceptions.
quote:
On the other hand, I think you want something other than equality and I'm not sure what it is. Greater punishment of the traditional oppressor as a means of compensating for the past? Greater punishment of men because they have the most obnoxious websites?
I really don't understand a position that seems to want to punish one gender or race more than another. Not just because it seems unfair to me, but because it seems unfair to thousands of other people and that just generates more hate and anger.
Wow. Despite our disagreements I have defended you as being of good intention. This statement angers me. Rather than berate you, I will attempt to educate you.
As I have said, I wish for everyone to be on the same playing field. This is not a simple thing. There are massive imbalances and they are systemic.
In order to address this imbalance, one must call attention to it. Politely hoping it will pass will never change things.
You can pick out exceptions, but they do not contradict the overall dynamic.
If you honestly think that all things are equal, then there is no discussion.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
To my mind, the point here is that ownership influences, and in the case of capitalism destroys, the fairness of the system. If you have all the cards stacked in your favour, it doesn't matter which comes up. The same is true if you have them all stacked against you. The fairness of the card draw is immaterial, and that is what capitalists will not see.
The same is, of course, true of other social systems, such as gender relations, but there is nearly always a clear line between those other systems and economic power.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
My main concern is usually equality; equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal treatment under the law, etc. That's why I bring up similar crimes with the female as the protagonists, not because I'm concerned about the poor man as you imply, but because it helps me try to figure out what we should call this and what I think the punishment should be. (Yes, yes I know, some lawyers have already figured it all out for me and I should just think what they tell me to think, but I like to pretend I can have opinions of my own, even if they are meaningless in the great halls of justice.)
On the other hand, I think you want something other than equality and I'm not sure what it is. Greater punishment of the traditional oppressor as a means of compensating for the past? Greater punishment of men because they have the most obnoxious websites?
I really don't understand a position that seems to want to punish one gender or race more than another. Not just because it seems unfair to me, but because it seems unfair to thousands of other people and that just generates more hate and anger.
I thought this excerpt to be very useful to this discussion, and since it has gone unremarked, I thought I'd remark on it.
Twilight's point about single mothers finding the job market / childcare options sufficiently hostile such that a low-income, low-personal-choice, low-status existence on benefits looks comparatively attractive, also struck me as uncontentious. Last time I looked I wasn't a 'Mail' reader - maybe I need to check again just in case.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.
I wonder how many people this paragraph actually applies to; how many mothers have actually sat down and determined that they'd be better off financially by having a child because the state would pay for it.*
I suspect despite the shit that conservatives like to believe, it is actually at or near none.
As already pointed out Mr. Cheesy my paragraph above was about women who had already had a child, nothing pre-planned about it.
It's odd to me that some of you think such a person doesn't exist. I know many such women and I am very sympathetic to their plight.
Here's how it goes. They get pregnant, they have a baby. They find a daycare which will care for infants (not easy) and they continue with whatever job they've been working all along. Soon they find they can no longer afford to pay the rent because after paying the daycare's weekly cost and buying food, there simply isn't enough left. So out of sheer necessity they have to apply for welfare and quit their job. At no point did they need to sit down and crunch numbers. The empty refrigerator and apartment eviction notice said it for them.
You and some others may live in an ivory tower and never encounter such things but I've worked minimum wage jobs most of my life and watched as many friends and coworkers had to quit working after getting pregnant for just those reasons.
I was married when my son was pre-school age but still only worked part time evening jobs, after my husband was home to care for the child, because I could never have afforded to pay for daycare out of my wages.
I'm not talking about 35 year-old single bank managers with live in help who decide to have babies, I'm talking about the thousands of poor women with only high-school educations who find themselves pregnant and having to make these choices every year. As I said above I approve their choice to live on welfare for their children's pre-school years. America doesn't offer the automatic free health care and free daycare for everyone so this is just our way of getting it when it's needed.
I know lots of women living this way, my husband just finished doing taxes for over a thousand low or no income people as part of his volunteer work at the local food pantry. This is the way many mothers are living in the 21st century and I don't see anything bad about it. At a big Chinese Buffet in town we often see lots of these mothers with their friends and their babies. They are wonderful mothers. Un-stressed by trying to make ends meet on minimum wage, exhausting jobs, they are relaxed, patient and very loving with their children and I think that's the important thing.
I will always think it's best for the child and for the society at large, to get married before having children, but that's just my opinion of the ideal and like most ideals it's not always easy to reach and keep. I didn't manage it. I ended up a single mother myself after getting divorced and had to support myself and my son on my minimum wage bank teller job. I was able to do it without going on welfare, but only because my son was school age by then and we were lucky enough not to get sick.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As already pointed out Mr. Cheesy my paragraph above was about women who had already had a child, nothing pre-planned about it.
But that's not how the conversation went.
mr C.
quote:
A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny.
The woman is deliberately becoming pregnant.
Twilight
quote:
In America, in most such cases the majority of the financial burden is placed on the government.
DocTor
quote:
What an odd place the USA must be, that women aren't allowed jobs and earn their own money to support their family, and must be reliant on the state for their every need.
So, no. I didn't misunderstand you, and neither did mr C. If that's *not* what you meant, then thank you for the clarification. But we were explicitly discussing 'women who deliberately get pregnant' and you jump in with 'they're going to let the state support them'.
Also, in the real world, women do have education, and some of them even have well-paid jobs so that they can support both themselves and their child. And sometimes a husband too, the feckless shirker.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Thanks, I'm really losing the plot as to what we're talking about now. I thought I was responding to the point about how/why a woman-who-has-sex-to-have-a-child over the wishes of the man was/wasn't the same as a man who takes off a condom.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Solid logic =/= solid conclusion. Making a logical case only ,means you are consistent within the parameters used. Your problem here is one you typically have and that is isolation.
Consent is the condition upon which we judge whether something is rape or not, but rape is about power.
So you think there are circumstances where someone can have unconsensual sex with someone else without it being rape?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You are an idiot
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you think there are circumstances where someone can have unconsensual sex with someone else without it being rape?
Brother and sister, both get very drunk and end up having sex.
If neither have given consent, have they raped each other?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are an idiot
You're the one bringing factors other than consent into the discussion. Surely it's the case that if there needs to be something as well as the absence of consent for an act to be rape then it's possible for an act that only features the absence of consent to not be rape.
Stand by what you said or don't, but don't call me an idiot for pointing out what you're actually saying.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are an idiot
You're the one bringing factors other than consent into the discussion. Surely it's the case that if there needs to be something as well as the absence of consent for an act to be rape then it's possible for an act that only features the absence of consent to not be rape.
Stand by what you said or don't, but don't call me an idiot for pointing out what you're actually saying.
You are not pointing out what I was saying, you are attempting to reframe the issue.
You truly seem to have comprehension problems. If they are congenital, then I apologise for abusing you for them.
I will lay it out in simple terms, possibly after I decide whether to castigate you or feel compassion for your condition.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As already pointed out Mr. Cheesy my paragraph above was about women who had already had a child, nothing pre-planned about it.
But that's not how the conversation went.
mr C.
quote:
A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny.
The woman is deliberately becoming pregnant.
Twilight
quote:
In America, in most such cases the majority of the financial burden is placed on the government.
DocTor
quote:
What an odd place the USA must be, that women aren't allowed jobs and earn their own money to support their family, and must be reliant on the state for their every need.
So, no. I didn't misunderstand you, and neither did mr C. If that's *not* what you meant, then thank you for the clarification. But we were explicitly discussing 'women who deliberately get pregnant' and you jump in with 'they're going to let the state support them'.
Also, in the real world, women do have education, and some of them even have well-paid jobs so that they can support both themselves and their child. And sometimes a husband too, the feckless shirker.
Wow. Way to take things out of context and making it look like I'm answering one question when an entire other one has been inserted. At first I was only talking about Mr. C's hypothetical woman who deliberately tricked men into getting pregnant and that was who I suggested was probably using the government to raise her children. Then we went on to more general subjects (you and Cheesy weren't the only ones talking) but I did make a point of saying I was not talking about college educated bank managers,but poor ones who needed assistance. What part of that did you not catch that you felt the need to tell me some women had college educations?
What always amazes me in these situations is how eager people like you and Cheesy are to paint me as a conservative. What is that all about? Do I accidentally use some key word that you once read in your so hated Daily Mail? I'm sorry,I read the Dayton Daily News, I'm not responsible for the Mail.
I've been a staunch liberal all my life. I've voted Democrat in every election since 1968. I was a charter member of my local NOW chapter. I've taken part in civil rights marches and anti war marches since 1966. I heard Martin Luther King speak in person. Just because I don't knee jerk left to every single subject that comes up according to the group think doesn't make me a conservative and maybe if you would keep that in mind you wouldn't read every word I say through those prissy Margaret Thatcher detection glasses of yours.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I've no intention of painting you as a conservative. Just someone who takes a sudden turn when straight on will do just fine, and leaves the rest of us with whiplash.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are not pointing out what I was saying, you are attempting to reframe the issue.
The discussion thus far has centred around the question of informed consent and situations (such as stealthing) where it could legitimately be considered to be absent due to the nefarious actions of one of the partners. My comments are squarely within that context.
Nobody had even mentioned "power" until you brought it up, seemingly in an attempt to deny that informed consent is the only criterion that defines rape.
And yet I'm reframing the issue? Pull the other one, sunshine.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
So can we talk about whether sex without consent can ever not be rape? It seems to me that asleep-sex or mutually-drunk sex might not be rape, but it sounds like jurisdictions vary on how to deal with these scenarios. I've read that in some the "instigator" is so blame, but it must be really hard to prove if both people are asleep or very drunk.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
There is a clear difference between the man-removing-condom and the woman-not-taking-pill scenarios. The physical act is different and the acceptance of risk is different.
If I (a woman, for the avoidance of doubt) consent to PIV sex *only* with a condom, I am explicitly refusing consent to unprotected ejaculation inside me. If unprotected ejaculation takes place without my consent, it's assault, in the same way as it would be assault if I had consented to PIV sex with condom, and following withdrawal of P, the man then squirted *anything* up me without my consent.
By consenting to PIV sex with condom, I am at no point accepting the risk that he may also commit the non-consensual act of ejaculating inside me, in the same way that by consenting to PIV sex, I am not accepting the risk that he might, without consent, put P in a different orifice, or insert something other than P into V.
If a man consents to PIV sex with a woman *only* if the woman has *already* performed a particular act (taken a pill at a *previous* time), in going ahead with otherwise unprotected PIV sex based on her assurances, he is accepting the risk that the condition (which would have to have been met in the past) may already not have been met.
[ 02. May 2017, 11:50: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
By consenting to PIV sex with condom, I am at no point accepting the risk that he may also commit the non-consensual act of ejaculating inside me, in the same way that by consenting to PIV sex, I am not accepting the risk that he might, without consent, put P in a different orifice, or insert something other than P into V.
If a man consents to PIV sex with a woman *only* if the woman has *already* performed a particular act (taken a pill at a *previous* time), in going ahead with otherwise unprotected PIV sex based on her assurances, he is accepting the risk that the condition (which would have to have been met in the past) may already not have been met.
So acceptance of risk depends on the time lag between what he has trusted her to do and what she has trusted him to do?
Or is it that ejaculation is a cruel assault in and of itself while possession of a fertile egg is a lovely passive thing?
Oh those nasty boys.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If a man consents to PIV sex with a woman *only* if the woman has *already* performed a particular act (taken a pill at a *previous* time), in going ahead with otherwise unprotected PIV sex based on her assurances, he is accepting the risk that the condition (which would have to have been met in the past) may already not have been met.
True, but you need to expand why the temporal difference makes it a different moral (or legal) category.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
By consenting to PIV sex with condom, I am at no point accepting the risk that he may also commit the non-consensual act of ejaculating inside me, in the same way that by consenting to PIV sex, I am not accepting the risk that he might, without consent, put P in a different orifice, or insert something other than P into V.
If a man consents to PIV sex with a woman *only* if the woman has *already* performed a particular act (taken a pill at a *previous* time), in going ahead with otherwise unprotected PIV sex based on her assurances, he is accepting the risk that the condition (which would have to have been met in the past) may already not have been met.
So acceptance of risk depends on the time lag between what he has trusted her to do and what she has trusted him to do?
Or is it that ejaculation is a cruel assault in and of itself while possession of a fertile egg is a lovely passive thing?
Oh those nasty boys.
The female equivalent of stealthing would be if, having agreed with a bloke to have PIV (with condom only) sex, as soon as he is hard, I straddle his unprotected P and force it into my V.
That would be assault. By a woman on a man.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If a man consents to PIV sex with a woman *only* if the woman has *already* performed a particular act (taken a pill at a *previous* time), in going ahead with otherwise unprotected PIV sex based on her assurances, he is accepting the risk that the condition (which would have to have been met in the past) may already not have been met.
True, but you need to expand why the temporal difference makes it a different moral (or legal) category.
It's a tricky one, isn't it?
I suppose I see the woman's position as being:
"I have either taken or not taken the pill. I am asserting to you that I have taken it. Do you consent to have PIV sex with me?" The facts cannot change through the actions of either party after the giving of consent.
The man's position is:
"I will wear a condom and not remove it until I withdraw from you. Do you consent to have PIV sex with me?" The facts *can* change through the actions of the man after the giving of consent.
Does that make sense or am I talking BS?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Does that make sense or am I talking BS?
Not sure, to be honest. Both seem dishonest to me, and it is hard to say that the one is really worse than the other.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Does that make sense or am I talking BS?
Not sure, to be honest. Both seem dishonest to me, and it is hard to say that the one is really worse than the other.
Both might be lying. But in the latter case, if the bloke is lying, he intends to assault the woman by making her perform an act (accepting his unprotected P and ejaculate) that she hasn't consented to. In the former case, if the woman is lying, she is equally dishonest, but she won't be compelling him to perform a sex act he hasn't consented to. He *has* consented to ejaculate in her V and that comes with risks.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Yes, but he hasn't consented to a pregnancy. Indeed, he's consented to sex on the basis that there is little chance of pregnancy which - in this scenario - turns out to be much more likely than he thought.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Yes. No argument with that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
So.. then we're somehow saying that lying about the preventing E of the S into the V is a different category than lying about wanting the S in the V in order to get pregnant.
As I said above, I think the first scenario is bad because it is about power and the man being able to see (show?) that he has "conquered" the woman.
But the second scenario is also bad because it is premised on the idea that there is little risk of pregnancy whereas in reality this is the desired outcome for the woman.
Which, I suppose, may not be about power over the man - and may not be about the man at all (if the woman has no intention of expecting the man to pay for the upkeep or parenting of the child), but it could easily be.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I think the lying is equally bad in both cases. But the physical mechanism differs, ie whether a physical act to which one partner hasn't consented takes place or not.
The position as I see it is that both are wrong, and one could be a crime.
But what is the real reason for the other not being - potentially - criminal? is it because it would be difficult to define, difficult to prosecute, or because of the difference in the physical mechanisms?
I don't know.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There was a recent case in NSW where that was held to be rape - consent had been given for 1 act and another was committed. Much the same as allowing a kiss on the cheek and then being groped claiming that all was the same.
I think this is right: it's a criminal act.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I suppose I see the woman's position as being:
"I have either taken or not taken the pill. I am asserting to you that I have taken it. Do you consent to have PIV sex with me?" The facts cannot change through the actions of either party after the giving of consent.
An interesting thing to ponder might be how you would feel about a man lying about having had a vasectomy and then getting a woman pregnant. That's another case where the facts cannot change through the actions of either party, but I'm sure I've heard people say that it would constitute a criminal act.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet I'm reframing the issue? Pull the other one, sunshine.
You have me in a genuine quandary on how to treat you. Are you this stupid, an arsehole or a combination?
The issue on discussion is the douchebag practice of stealthing. "Look, look, women do bad things too" is the first reframe.
Rape is defined by consent, but it is about power.* Trying to remove that from the discussion is the second reframe.
Attempting to frame different bad things as equivalent, though a derivative of the first reframe, still counts as a third instance.
*Unless you think things like marital and date rape were never really rape until the law began to define it so.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet I'm reframing the issue? Pull the other one, sunshine.
You have me in a genuine quandary on how to treat you. Are you this stupid, an arsehole or a combination?
The issue on discussion is the douchebag practice of stealthing. "Look, look, women do bad things too" is the first reframe.
Rape is defined by consent, but it is about power.* Trying to remove that from the discussion is the second reframe.
Attempting to frame different bad things as equivalent, though a derivative of the first reframe, still counts as a third instance.
*Unless you think things like marital and date rape were never really rape until the law began to define it so.
Not speaking for Martin but since I brought up "things women do" also, I know it was never a case of trying to reframe anything it was part of the discussion of whether we thought stealthing should be considered rape. I was trying to think of similar actions and whether those things were considered rape. Not to mention worry that if a man could be charged with assault, a woman might be charged with the same thing if she lied about conditions before sex.
I'm also not sure why rape being about power is something we simply have to consider. Most crimes have a psychological component. Theft is about greed and also sometimes about power and excitement. So is murder. Anger is a form of fear, so road rage could be about fear. Does that make it better or worse? We could go on and on, but I don't see why these conscious or unconscious motivating factors matter much when deciding whether the action is a crime.
We aren't trying to reframe anything we just didn't get into all that. No one has said it isn't about power.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The issue on discussion is the douchebag practice of stealthing. "Look, look, women do bad things too" is the first reframe.
It's not a reframe at all. The question is whether "stealthing" - which everyone agrees is bad - is rape, and if so, exactly where you draw the lines around rape.
I could see "stealthing" being rape (under the assumption that consent to condomsex is different from consent to noncondomsex).
So where's the next step beyond that? Perhaps the guy says that he's had a vasectomy, and has no STDs, and on that basis the woman consents to noncondomsex, but it turns out that he lied about the vasectomy*. Is that rape? And if that's rape, what about the mirror image of that - the woman lying about being on the pill?
And going beyond that, we get to the tired old lies about "I love you", "I'll marry you", "My spouse and I are living separate lives", "I'm divorced" that people tell in order to acquire sex,
We agree that all these are arsehole acts. The question at stake is which of these acts are illegal, and whether all the illegal ones are the crime of rape.
*This is different from the vasectomy being unsuccessful. If the guy says he's had a vasectomy, and he has, but unbeknownst to him, he's still fertile, he's done nothing wrong.
[ 02. May 2017, 19:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's nice to know someone gets where I'm coming from.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Women and men lie about the potential consequences of an act of sexual intimacy (whether it is part of a relationship or will lead to one, whether that relationship is or will be exclusive, whether they're available, whether they're fertile, whether there's a high or low risk of pregnancy or STD).
All of these lies are bad, whoever is telling them to whom.
All of it is separate from the issue of whether it is OK to put something in someone's body (an unsheathed P, seminal fluid) that they haven't given you permission to put in there.
If a doctor is giving me an internal examination and intentionally, but secretly, removes his glove beforehand, that's assault. If we were considering that act, we surely wouldn't be discussing whether patients lie to doctors and whether this is a bad thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
All of it is separate from the issue of whether it is OK to put something in someone's body (an unsheathed P, seminal fluid) that they haven't given you permission to put in there.
If a doctor is giving me an internal examination and intentionally, but secretly, removes his glove beforehand, that's assault. If we were considering that act, we surely wouldn't be discussing whether patients lie to doctors and whether this is a bad thing.
If a patient lies about having HIV and the doctor exposes him/herself to an unknown danger by treating them, is that not also an assault?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
All of it is separate from the issue of whether it is OK to put something in someone's body (an unsheathed P, seminal fluid) that they haven't given you permission to put in there.
If a doctor is giving me an internal examination and intentionally, but secretly, removes his glove beforehand, that's assault. If we were considering that act, we surely wouldn't be discussing whether patients lie to doctors and whether this is a bad thing.
If a patient lies about having HIV and the doctor exposes him/herself to an unknown danger by treating them, is that not also an assault?
I believe not. The crimes of reckless and intentional transmission don't seem to cover medical scenarios. I imagine this is because a doctor following standard infection avoidance protocols will never be at significant risk. And as I understand it, the law now allows HIV positive health care workers to carry out exposure prone procedures without any obligation to inform the patient of their status.
It would, however, be assault for a patient to grab a doctor's ungloved hand and insert it into any of his/her orifices. It's not about the consequences - it's about your right to have a say in what people do to your body.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's not about the consequences - it's about your right to have a say in what people do to your body.
This separates lying about the pill vs stealthing. This make the first definitely not rape and the second possibly.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0