3 ms·

And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and someone w

And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and someone who is not single lies about it. During sex said person is not going to be single and thus is breaking the terms of concent while sex is happening.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
> And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? Assuming I understood your original hypothetical correctly, the sex had already occurred and the violation of the terms of consent did not occur until afterward. The sex at the time was consensual (at least within those facts), the violation of trust occurred later. > How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and someone who is not single lies about it. During sex said person is not going to be single and thus is breaking the terms of concent while sex is happening. Yes, that is a clear violation of consent. One partner stated their acceptable boundaries to have sex, and consented only based on a lie by the other. Lying to obtain consent is fundamentally not obtaining consent. In other contracts, it would be considered fraud. Using fraud to trick someone into having sex with you is rape. Edit: this is not just academic. People make judgments not just about whether to have sex but about what kinds of safety considerations are necessary based on this kind of information. If someone is lying to you about having other sexual partners, you are not equipped to evaluate the risk of your own sexual encounter. They are putting your life at risk and eliminating your ability to choose whether that risk is acceptable.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Thank you for elaborating. I do not personally agree with it (as it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word[note1] with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations) but I have to admit that it is consistent[note2]. [note1] Last time that I asked a similar question in HN I was told that even promising not to cheat and then cheating after the act would be considered as rape, meanwhile the people (outside of HN) that I asked and were unfamiliar with the Assange case seemed to think that neither were considered rape. When I checked at the laws of different countries it seemed that the few that considered it a crime classified it under other terms. (rape seems to imply violence or coercement) [note2] If we ignore the edit that is. Not saying that the edit is not consistent but I will need your elaboration in order to be able to deduce it. > Edit: this is not just academic. People make judgments not just about whether to have sex but about what kinds of safety considerations are necessary based on this kind of information. If someone is lying to you about having other sexual partners, you are not equipped to evaluate the risk of your own sexual encounter. They are putting your life at risk and eliminating your ability to choose whether that risk is acceptable. Are you saying that it is fine as long as you are not put in risk? Because the previous example that I posted ("you can have sex with me but only if you are single") does not have any safety implications (someone can be single yet they could also had sex with someone else the previous day).
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word > [...] > rape seems to imply violence or coercement I think you're redefining the term, whether you intend to or not. Rape is sex without consent. Sex without consent is inherently coercive, but it doesn't have to imply a struggle or resistance, quite a lot of rape isn't physically forced sex. Consent obtained by fraud is not consent, and sex under those conditions is inherently nonconsensual. > with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations You may have missed this in another subthread, but I'm a victim of sexual assault. The majority of women in my personal life who I've spoken with about the subject are as well, and several of the men and nonbinary folks as well. Again, whether you intend to or not, I think it's you who is undermining what victims have gone through. Finding out that you've had sex in violation of the terms you agreed to can be extremely traumatizing. > Are you saying that it is fine as long as you are not put in risk? Because the previous example that I posted ("you can have sex with me but only if you are single") does not have any safety implications (someone can be single yet they could also had sex with someone else the previous day). No, that is not what I was saying. My edit was to clarify that the answer I gave to your hypothetical wasn't just "is it rape or is it not" in some abstract sense, and to provide an explanation of the kind of harm that can be done by your hypothetical, to hopefully help you understand the severity of violating that consent. The example you posted does have those safety implications, which was what I was trying to explain. I encourage you to go back and re-read it with that in mind.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

> And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? Assuming I understood your original hypothetical correctly, the sex had already occurred and the violation of the terms of consent did not occur until afterward. The sex at the time was consensual (at least within those facts), the violation of trust occurred later. > How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and someone who is not single lies about it. During sex said person is not going to be single and thus is breaking the terms of concent while sex is happening. Yes, that is a clear violation of consent. One partner stated their acceptable boundaries to have sex, and consented only based on a lie by the other. Lying to obtain consent is fundamentally not obtaining consent. In other contracts, it would be considered fraud. Using fraud to trick someone into having sex with you is rape. Edit: this is not just academic. People make judgments not just about whether to have sex but about what kinds of safety considerations are necessary based on this kind of information. If someone is lying to you about having other sexual partners, you are not equipped to evaluate the risk of your own sexual encounter. They are putting your life at risk and eliminating your ability to choose whether that risk is acceptable.

dependenttypes 6y ago
Thank you for elaborating. I do not personally agree with it (as it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word[note1] with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations) but I have to admit that it is consistent[note2]. [note1] Last time that I asked a similar question in HN I was told that even promising not to cheat and then cheating after the act would be considered as rape, meanwhile the people (outside of HN) that I asked and were unfamiliar with the Assange case seemed to think that neither were considered rape. When I checked at the laws of different countries it seemed that the few that considered it a crime classified it under other terms. (rape seems to imply violence or coercement) [note2] If we ignore the edit that is. Not saying that the edit is not consistent but I will need your elaboration in order to be able to deduce it. > Edit: this is not just academic. People make judgments not just about whether to have sex but about what kinds of safety considerations are necessary based on this kind of information. If someone is lying to you about having other sexual partners, you are not equipped to evaluate the risk of your own sexual encounter. They are putting your life at risk and eliminating your ability to choose whether that risk is acceptable. Are you saying that it is fine as long as you are not put in risk? Because the previous example that I posted ("you can have sex with me but only if you are single") does not have any safety implications (someone can be single yet they could also had sex with someone else the previous day).
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word > [...] > rape seems to imply violence or coercement I think you're redefining the term, whether you intend to or not. Rape is sex without consent. Sex without consent is inherently coercive, but it doesn't have to imply a struggle or resistance, quite a lot of rape isn't physically forced sex. Consent obtained by fraud is not consent, and sex under those conditions is inherently nonconsensual. > with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations You may have missed this in another subthread, but I'm a victim of sexual assault. The majority of women in my personal life who I've spoken with about the subject are as well, and several of the men and nonbinary folks as well. Again, whether you intend to or not, I think it's you who is undermining what victims have gone through. Finding out that you've had sex in violation of the terms you agreed to can be extremely traumatizing. > Are you saying that it is fine as long as you are not put in risk? Because the previous example that I posted ("you can have sex with me but only if you are single") does not have any safety implications (someone can be single yet they could also had sex with someone else the previous day). No, that is not what I was saying. My edit was to clarify that the answer I gave to your hypothetical wasn't just "is it rape or is it not" in some abstract sense, and to provide an explanation of the kind of harm that can be done by your hypothetical, to hopefully help you understand the severity of violating that consent. The example you posted does have those safety implications, which was what I was trying to explain. I encourage you to go back and re-read it with that in mind.