4 ms·

How is that rape? I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. "I agree to have sex with you so long as you send

by swombat 12y ago

How is that rape? I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. "I agree to have sex with you so long as you send that email tomorrow." Next day: "You didn't send the email! That means you raped me yesterday!" Er, no. Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't. If you don't, that should always be respected entirely. If you withdraw your consent halfway through sex, that should also be respected entirely. However, you can't withdraw consent later when you find out that the other person wasn't using protection. Or rather, you can accuse them of being an asshole, but you can't accuse them of raping you.

mootothemax 12y ago
I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. A few questions for you: If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier? Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine? Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the black-and-white views you're putting across here. Edit: removed crappy BDSM question. Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles of consent unless that consent involves a condom. Personally, I find that strange, least of all over the increased STD and pregnancy risks involved.
- tomp 12y ago
  So you're basically saying that if a woman lies about being on the pill, she raped you? I don't think courts would uphold such an argument...
  - mootothemax 12y ago
    So you're basically saying that if a woman lies about being on the pill, she raped you? I don't think courts would uphold such an argument... Yeah, that seems reasonable enough to me. I'm not a lawyer though, no idea what the courts in any given country would or wouldn't do.
- swombat 12y ago
  If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier? Then that person is an evil asshole who should go to jail for purposefully infecting others with a disease, just the same as if he were to purposefully put anthrax spores on your pillow. However, he's not a rapist. That's something completely different. Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine? Sure, that's a fair point. But there some might argue that that's a different kind of sex. Don't oversimplify my point: obviously agreeing to a blow job is not the same as agreeing to penetrative sex or agreeing to anal sex or agreeing to be tied up in a harness and whipped. But once it is clear that there is agreement for that kind of sex, you can't go after the fact and say "oh actually that was conditional on X and therefore you raped me". As I said, the person who betrayed the other person's trust may still be an asshole - but a rapist, they're not. Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is: a violent and despicable act of "taking" a form of sex that was refused.
  - mootothemax 12y ago
    Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is... ...your definition, and nobody else's? This is a marginally unfair comparison: you realise saying this puts you in the same camp as those who talk about "legitimate" rape? I honestly don't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape: sex without consent. You're saying that sex without consent is fine if that consent involves a condom.
    - swombat 12y ago
      I honestly don't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape: sex without consent. Because that's not the definition of rape?? That seems like a good reason not to oversimplify. Here's our good old friend the dictionary to the rescue: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t 1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. 3. statutory rape. 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. 5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force. Now, it could be that it ends up being called rape under definition #3 - because the statutes say it is. To me, that is a perversion of the english language, though. Rape is clearly intended to imply some kind of forcing. It's not just "I didn't consent to have sex in this specific way", it's "I either gave no consent or I asked them to stop and they still did it".
lucisferre 12y ago
Wow... I can't even even find the words to describe how wrong this is. > it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. Actually, that's exactly like it is. Sexual consent is not an on or off switch. I can't do things to another person they don't like simple because they agreed to get in the same bed with me. Seriously, you need to give this way more thought.
- swombat 12y ago
  See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7989180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7989180 Yes, it is more nuanced than an on/off switch, if you consider all the different varieties of "sex" out there. No, omitting to use a condom while having consensual sex is still not rape.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Omitting using a condom when your partner has established that they do not consent to sex without a condom is not consensual sex. This is tremendously different than your email example, because this 1) happens in advance of any acts (we're not retroactively making anything rape), and 2) condom use has manifestly significant consequences as to the safety and consequences of the act (so is very much something that should be impacting whether someone consents). Depending on the nature of the email, the circumstances, and intents at the time, I'm not sure that I would say that situation could never be rape, but there is oodles of room for that to not be rape and this to still be.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. And why not? Why would it be unreasonable to stipulate something to the effect of 'no unprotected sex'?

by swombat 12y ago

mootothemax 12y ago

I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. A few questions for you: If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier? Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine? Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the black-and-white views you're putting across here. Edit: removed crappy BDSM question. Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles of consent unless that consent involves a condom. Personally, I find that strange, least of all over the increased STD and pregnancy risks involved.

tomp 12y ago
So you're basically saying that if a woman lies about being on the pill, she raped you? I don't think courts would uphold such an argument...
- mootothemax 12y ago
  So you're basically saying that if a woman lies about being on the pill, she raped you? I don't think courts would uphold such an argument... Yeah, that seems reasonable enough to me. I'm not a lawyer though, no idea what the courts in any given country would or wouldn't do.
swombat 12y ago
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier? Then that person is an evil asshole who should go to jail for purposefully infecting others with a disease, just the same as if he were to purposefully put anthrax spores on your pillow. However, he's not a rapist. That's something completely different. Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine? Sure, that's a fair point. But there some might argue that that's a different kind of sex. Don't oversimplify my point: obviously agreeing to a blow job is not the same as agreeing to penetrative sex or agreeing to anal sex or agreeing to be tied up in a harness and whipped. But once it is clear that there is agreement for that kind of sex, you can't go after the fact and say "oh actually that was conditional on X and therefore you raped me". As I said, the person who betrayed the other person's trust may still be an asshole - but a rapist, they're not. Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is: a violent and despicable act of "taking" a form of sex that was refused.
- mootothemax 12y ago
  Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is... ...your definition, and nobody else's? This is a marginally unfair comparison: you realise saying this puts you in the same camp as those who talk about "legitimate" rape? I honestly don't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape: sex without consent. You're saying that sex without consent is fine if that consent involves a condom.
  - swombat 12y ago
    I honestly don't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape: sex without consent. Because that's not the definition of rape?? That seems like a good reason not to oversimplify. Here's our good old friend the dictionary to the rescue: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t 1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. 3. statutory rape. 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. 5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force. Now, it could be that it ends up being called rape under definition #3 - because the statutes say it is. To me, that is a perversion of the english language, though. Rape is clearly intended to imply some kind of forcing. It's not just "I didn't consent to have sex in this specific way", it's "I either gave no consent or I asked them to stop and they still did it".

lucisferre 12y ago

Wow... I can't even even find the words to describe how wrong this is. > it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. Actually, that's exactly like it is. Sexual consent is not an on or off switch. I can't do things to another person they don't like simple because they agreed to get in the same bed with me. Seriously, you need to give this way more thought.

swombat 12y ago
See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7989180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7989180 Yes, it is more nuanced than an on/off switch, if you consider all the different varieties of "sex" out there. No, omitting to use a condom while having consensual sex is still not rape.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Omitting using a condom when your partner has established that they do not consent to sex without a condom is not consensual sex. This is tremendously different than your email example, because this 1) happens in advance of any acts (we're not retroactively making anything rape), and 2) condom use has manifestly significant consequences as to the safety and consequences of the act (so is very much something that should be impacting whether someone consents). Depending on the nature of the email, the circumstances, and intents at the time, I'm not sure that I would say that situation could never be rape, but there is oodles of room for that to not be rape and this to still be.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

>it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing. And why not? Why would it be unreasonable to stipulate something to the effect of 'no unprotected sex'?