Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not group marital status into the same category as income or religion. If someone lies about their income or religion...that might harm me if I plan on getting into a long term relationship with them, somehow, but that's about the limit of it. If they lie about being married, their husband may attack me, and I may make enemies I don't want to make. There's a lot more potential for unwanted complications too.
The MeToo movement is largely about getting the word out that certain people are asses, even if they can't be legally punished, and I think that's done some good because of that. That would one option. I would hope such a person would be banned from the website...but I don't think they should be legally punished. We're talking about online stuff here. I think it would be needlessly cruel to the person attempting to "convert" the lesbians to legally punish them for that. Anyone online needs to understand that they have no way of knowing the identity of the person on the other end of the screen...and I don't think society can legally protect people who don't take that into account.
Now...I think they should be banned from the website, but the lesbian consented to engaging in that activity with someone they didn't know the identity of...and they knew there was no way to prove it.
I agree that it's just like sexual harassment. It is sexual harassment. That said, sexual harassment is typically not illegal, so far as I understand, unless the person is in some kind of position of authority, and typically punishments consist of firings and lawsuits and financial rewards rather than jail time.
In these scenarios, the harasser is not in a position of authority. They're not a teacher or an employer or in that sort of position.
Oh, good grief. It is not sexual harassment. It is denying a person the right to consent to the type of sexual activity they will engage in. God help us.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Oh, good grief. It is not sexual harassment. It is denying a person the right to consent to the type of sexual activity they will engage in. God help us.
Note that my newly edited post is a little different than the one you responded to.
Lying about marital status also denies the person the right to consent to the type of sexual activity they will engage in. If a woman does that, her husband may attack me. I might make enemies I don't want to make. I could be led on, etc.
You were the one who described it as being like sexual harassment first.
I figure it's like...if someone found out the person they slept with was a serial killer, that might be very traumatic to them, but they can't take back their consent after they've slept with the serial killer. They consented to the intercourse, because it wasn't forced, even if the serial killer lied to get the sex.
We can't legally punish people for lying about that stuff unless we want to become a much more controlling society in other ways too, if we're to be consistent.
Now ethically speaking...I think there's an additional layer of wrongness due to lying about one's genitalia...because that's a major aspect of many people's interest in sex...but the bottom line is even if we lie to get sex, the consent can't be removed afterward...at least not unless we want to become a much more controlling society.
If someone agrees to have sex with someone, at least if they're sound of mind, they've, in some way, gotten what they've asked for, regardless of whatever other traits the person has.
Note that my newly edited post is a little different than the one you responded to.
Lying about marital status also denies the person the right to consent to the type of sexual activity they will engage in. If a woman does that, her husband may attack me. I might make enemies I don't want to make. I could be led on, etc.
You were the one who described it as being like sexual harassment first.
I figure it's like...if someone found out the person they slept with was a serial killer, that might be very traumatic to them, but they can't take back their consent after they've slept with the serial killer. They consented to the intercourse, because it wasn't forced, even if the serial killer lied to get the sex.
We can't legally punish people for lying about that stuff unless we want to become a much more controlling society in other ways too, if we're to be consistent.
Now ethically speaking...I think there's an additional layer of wrongness due to lying about one's genitalia...because that's a major aspect of many people's interest in sex...but the bottom line is even if we lie to get sex, the consent can't be removed afterward...at least not unless we want to become a much more controlling society.
If someone agrees to have sex with someone, at least if they're sound of mind, they've, in some way, gotten what they've asked for, regardless of whatever other traits the person has.
Physically, you do not have a different kind of sex depending upon whether or not the person has killed someone in the past. Physically, you don’t have a different kind of sex depending on whether the person is married or not. However, a male getting a blow job by a woman is engaging in heterosexual sex and a man getting a blow job from a man is engaging in homosexual sex - those are two very different things. A person has a right to determine the gender of the person they have sex with and in this case, unlike in most interactions between transgendered individuals and cis individuals, what gender they think their sex partner is matters more than what gender that partner feels they are. A person who gives consent to engage in heterosexual sexual activity with a female is not automatically giving consent if it turns out that person was born a male and failed to tell them. They have not been given the opportunity to give consent.
It is like sexual harassment only in the sense that YOU don’t get to define whether they consented or not based on your comfort with transgendered individuals - it should only be based on THEIR comfort with them.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Now ethically speaking...I think there's an additional layer of wrongness due to lying about one's genitalia...because that's a major aspect of many people's interest in sex...but the bottom line is even if we lie to get sex, the consent can't be removed afterward...at least not unless we want to become a much more controlling society.
Major aspect? Its a critical aspect. SEX involves genitals, its part of the definition, they may be your own genitals or someone else's, but, they're critical components of sex.
Lying about you income, marital status, isn't material to consensual sex, unless one party demands evidence of it before consenting. However to lead someone to a conclusion that very well may be VERY material to someone's consensual agreement to sex is very material, if it were not, then a gay guy getting a BJ from some girl dressed like a twink wouldn't be an issue, a lesbian getting finger banged by a feminine guy dressed like a lipstick lesbian wouldn't be an issue. However they're very much issues, because sexual orientation isn't a conscious choice. The whole issue violates the concept of informed consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
If someone agrees to have sex with someone, at least if they're sound of mind, they've, in some way, gotten what they've asked for, regardless of whatever other traits the person has.
Really? So the bathroom switcheroo* thats been done many times is perfectly ok, because the unknowing and possibly unwilling subject of the switch got what they asked for? Or switching between vaginal and anal without additional consent, because you know they agreed to have sex.
(* switcheroo, is where one person who initiated the encounter switches with another person in the bathroom before they've engaged in sex with the other participant. Its illegal and is considered rape).
In all honesty I'm completely at a loss to comprehend your overall opinion. We're not talking morning after buyers remorse, but deliberate and wilful deception about perhaps the most material aspect of sexual consent.
Along these line an idiot law maker in Nj tried to get a law passed where if a man told a lie to gain the favor of a woman he would be charged with rape.
As long as their are democrat socialists, idiotic laws will be their forte.
Note that my newly edited post is a little different than the one you responded to.
Lying about marital status also denies the person the right to consent to the type of sexual activity they will engage in. If a woman does that, her husband may attack me. I might make enemies I don't want to make. I could be led on, etc.
You were the one who described it as being like sexual harassment first.
I figure it's like...if someone found out the person they slept with was a serial killer, that might be very traumatic to them, but they can't take back their consent after they've slept with the serial killer. They consented to the intercourse, because it wasn't forced, even if the serial killer lied to get the sex.
We can't legally punish people for lying about that stuff unless we want to become a much more controlling society in other ways too, if we're to be consistent.
Now ethically speaking...I think there's an additional layer of wrongness due to lying about one's genitalia...because that's a major aspect of many people's interest in sex...but the bottom line is even if we lie to get sex, the consent can't be removed afterward...at least not unless we want to become a much more controlling society.
If someone agrees to have sex with someone, at least if they're sound of mind, they've, in some way, gotten what they've asked for, regardless of whatever other traits the person has.
Again your analogy is RIDICULOUS. The situation described by the OP is a SEX CRIME.
Along these line an idiot law maker in Nj tried to get a law passed where if a man told a lie to gain the favor of a woman he would be charged with rape.
As long as their are democrat socialists, idiotic laws will be their forte.
No it isn't a form of rape. It's no different than someone lying about their weight on an online dating profile. Maybe a bit dishonest, at the absolute worst (and if no one asked if they were transgender, I'm not sure I'd say not bringing it up was even dishonest)
No it isn't a form of rape. It's no different than someone lying about their weight on an online dating profile. Maybe a bit dishonest, at the absolute worst (and if no one asked if they were transgender, I'm not sure I'd say not bringing it up was even dishonest)
OK, so a lesbian getting fingered by a straight male transvestite who just failed to inform her he's actually a guy, and straight, wouldn't be rape either. Yes? It's just a "bit dishonest at the absolute worst".
If not, you need to rein in your bias. Of course its criminal. Sexual Orientation is not a choice, you're deceiving a person to violate their sexual orientation, either by intent, or negligence.
Not providing informed consent means no. Being misinformed, or led to believe one thing that's switched later without further consent is fraud at best, and prevents informed consent being given. Just like getting someone wasted on drugs or booze prevents consent being given.
OK, so a lesbian getting fingered by a straight male transvestite who just failed to inform her he's actually a guy, and straight, wouldn't be rape either. Yes? It's just a "bit dishonest at the absolute worst".
If not, you need to rein in your bias. Of course its criminal. Sexual Orientation is not a choice, you're deceiving a person to violate their sexual orientation, either by intent, or negligence.
Not providing informed consent means no. Being misinformed, or led to believe one thing that's switched later without further consent is fraud at best, and prevents informed consent being given. Just like getting someone wasted on drugs or booze prevents consent being given.
Like it or not, we live in a society where gender is more fluid than some people want to admit. When in doubt, ask and clarify things up front. In the original post, they said the two people consented to sex, when not under the influence of any substances. My opinion? No one was forced, no one was coerced, no one was under the influence of a foreign substance, and the two people consented.
Last edited by Lekrii; 06-20-2021 at 11:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
