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.
All that matters is that to the one partner it did matter and they were not given an opportunity to consent or not consent. It does meet the definition of rape, at least to the same level as someone who was too drunk to be able to consent.
To that one person. That does not address the matter of biological sex being fundamental across the board or more important than marital or any other issue a person after the fact was misinformed about.
And yes they did consent to having sex with that person. That they didnt bother to know the person before engaging in sex and could not distinguish a man from a woman doesn't nullify their consent.
Maybe not rape per se, but at least some sort of sexual crime as it is a MAJOR deception.
No normal heterosexual male wants to get with a dude who thinks he is a woman!!!
Does the normal heterosexual male not realize at some point its a dude?
I guess I am having a hard time even imagining meeting a person and having intercourse or oral sex and having an orgasm and never realizing that person is not of the opposite sex as you are. If a person can I think they have deeper issues than feeling violated.
And yes they did consent to having sex with that person.
The mentally ill man had his gender listed as female on the app. The victim went into the act thinking he was hooking up with an actual female. It was deception on the mentally ill persons part. No excuses for that.
To that one person. That does not address the matter of biological sex being fundamental across the board or more important than marital or any other issue a person after the fact was misinformed about.
And yes they did consent to having sex with that person. That they didnt bother to know the person before engaging in sex and could not distinguish a man from a woman doesn't nullify their consent.
If that person claimed they were a particular gendered, looked like a particular gender, presented themselves as a particular gender and they were not, yes it does nullify consent. Try upholding a contract where you use deceptive information to obtain the other party’s agreement - its nullified because the other party could not give consent.
Apparently you think tricking a person into having sex with someone they would not have willingly had sex with is just fine. Nice. I’m done going back and forth with you over this, our moral compasses are oriented differently.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
If that person claimed they were a particular gendered, looked like a particular gender, presented themselves as a particular gender and they were not, yes it does nullify consent. Try upholding a contract where you use deceptive information to obtain the other party’s agreement - its nullified because the other party could not give consent.
Apparently you think tricking a person into having sex with someone they would not have willingly had sex with is just fine. Nice. I’m done going back and forth with you over this, our moral compasses are oriented differently.
I dont agree. You can stop at anytime. When you realize a person is not the gender you thought, stop. Stop/NO, nullifies your consent.
Sex is not a contract. It is an intimate interaction where upon engaging you have to opportunity to view the goods. In 99% of the cases that should end the deception.
What I think is one can rarely be tricked into having sex with the same gendered person.
Does the normal heterosexual male not realize at some point its a dude?
I guess I am having a hard time even imagining meeting a person and having intercourse or oral sex and having an orgasm and never realizing that person is not of the opposite sex as you are. If a person can I think they have deeper issues than feeling violated.
Sounds like a bit of good old fashioned victim blaming - "he should have known that this woman is actually a man ... he was asking to be sexually violated!"
Does the normal heterosexual male not realize at some point its a dude?
I guess I am having a hard time even imagining meeting a person and having intercourse or oral sex and having an orgasm and never realizing that person is not of the opposite sex as you are. If a person can I think they have deeper issues than feeling violated.
Maybe not rape per se, but at least some sort of sexual crime as it is a MAJOR deception.
No normal heterosexual male wants to get with a dude who thinks he is a woman!!!
I could possibly see it being something like indecent exposure. The crime there is basically that you exposed yourself to people potentially who had not consented to view you naked, so I can sort of see a parallel there. Definitely not rape though.
If that person claimed they were a particular gendered, looked like a particular gender, presented themselves as a particular gender and they were not, yes it does nullify consent. Try upholding a contract where you use deceptive information to obtain the other party’s agreement - its nullified because the other party could not give consent.
Apparently you think tricking a person into having sex with someone they would not have willingly had sex with is just fine. Nice. I’m done going back and forth with you over this, our moral compasses are oriented differently.
Hmmm, well this is where the rubber meets the road, actually. It’s your opinion that they are not that gender, that they are simply “claiming” to be that gender - but in Kentucky, specifically (as it varies from state to state) the law is that if a physician signs off that the person has has reassignment surgery, they can amend their birth certificate to state that they are that medically reassigned gender.
So if the state recognises that person as a female, how are you going to prosecute that that person is a male? Medically and legally speaking, they are not.
If that person is a woman right down to their major identity documents, and have no male primary sexual characteristics - hormone therapy changes male characteristics including tone of voice - then is it really trickery and deception? As far as that person is concerned, they are now 100% the gender listed on their BC and passport.
Look I agree that if you’re entering into a relationship with someone, it’s morally the right thing to do to disclose your full history - it will also save both parties from potential headache if one of you can’t get past the history of the other. So it’s prudent on both sides. If you’re going to be fully intimate with someone, then intimacy goes beyond just physical sex, and requires trust.
But - if someone is just out looking for a quick hookup and a BJ and their hookup partner looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, has the physical sex characteristics of a woman, and their birth certificate says they’re a woman - well that’s kinda the end of that. I don’t see where it even needs to be mentioned, just like any other medical history that no one in a dark bar bothers to disclose. If you need a DNA test to find out, it’s pretty nebulous that there’s trickery involved here.
I do think it’s a different story if someone still has male characteristics. That’s where I think there’s consent issues that should be addressed. For the safety and well-being of both parties.
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.
