|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stealthing: Some People are Just Shit
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Yes. No argument with that.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It's nice to know someone gets where I'm coming from.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
