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.
A man tells a woman he's capable of having children, when in actuality, he's been snipped.
I think 2mares said it well...regret doesn't equate rape.
Regret or revulsion?
If you answer revulsion, then you're only strengthening the case for non consent, because most people aren't going to consent to something that revolts them.
It has always been the case that if a person is sexually active, it is its the responsibility of both parties to ensure they understand what they are about to get involved with.
I bet we all know someone that regrets a past "hook up".
It has always been the case that if a person is sexually active, it is its the responsibility of both parties to ensure they understand what they are about to get involved with.
I bet we all know someone that regrets a past "hook up".
If someone is hiding who they are then it it might not be possible in all situations for both parties to know what they are getting into. If a woman thinks she is about to get oral from a woman, but later she find finds out that it was actually a man, there isnt much she can do after the fact.
There are no "gender transitions." You just choose to be whatever gender you want to be, and then you are automatically that.
There are sex transitions though.
I don't think anyone should have a legal obligation to disclose their birth sex, if they've changed their sex through surgery, because then we'd be getting into a confusing area in which we could legally punish people for engaging in behaviors that they don't have much reason to see as wrong.
However, if they still have their birth sex...the physical sexual organs of their birth sex...I'm not sure they have a legal obligation to disclose that information prior to sexual contact, but if they don't, I think we should alter the laws so that they do have a legal obligation to disclose that they have a certain type of genitalia prior to sexual contact.
Otherwise we're putting people into situations they have had no interest in being placed into.
I'm not sure that should be classified as rape. Maybe they need some type of separate category for extremely drunk sex, or transgender people lying about having a certain type of genitalia...because unlike in other forms of non-consensual sexual contact, there is more potential for the act to have stemmed from just confusion and foolishness than the pure aggression required for other kinds of rape.
But it needs to be illegal.
Oftentimes I think people tend to chuckle when talking about sex crimes that happen to men. We laugh at prison rape, for example, oftentimes. I'd say society not taking it seriously when a person does not disclose their would-be-surprising genitalia prior to sexual contact is another is wrong for the same reason laughing about prison rape is wrong. If it's not illegal...that's just another one of those examples of not taking harm to men as seriously as we typically take harm to women.
And it could be hard to prove that...but then, traditional date rape is also hard to prove and we don't say that's legal.
Yes, that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying. I completely agree with you regarding it not being funny or silly just because it’s men on the other end of it, so to speak. Consent is a very serious concept that should work no matter who you are. That’s why I think the OP definitely has merit, and should be a proper debate.
The problem I have is that there are definite camps when it comes to defining what sex someone is after they’ve gone through the medical process of reassignment. There are some that will never accept that the person is any sex other than their initial physical genitalia, whereas as far as I’m concerned, if you don’t have the penis or the testosterone anymore (to grossly oversimplify), then it doesn’t matter what you used to be.
And legally, how do you prosecute someone for not disclosing they’re a man, when they’ve legally been recognised as a woman?
Actually we know the sex, and therefore gender of most babies even before they are born. It's a great system and works in all but the most rare of cases.
Right, discovering you’re transgender being one of those areas it fails.
Quote:
When I woke up this morning it was Tuesday. I identified with Saturday and attempted to assign it Saturday, but reality caught up with me when the meetings started.
Were you born with a weekday identifying endocrine system? Because if you weren’t, you probably had what’s medically referred to as a brain fart.
Yes, that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying. I completely agree with you regarding it not being funny or silly just because it’s men on the other end of it, so to speak. Consent is a very serious concept that should work no matter who you are. That’s why I think the OP definitely has merit, and should be a proper debate.
The problem I have is that there are definite camps when it comes to defining what sex someone is after they’ve gone through the medical process of reassignment. There are some that will never accept that the person is any sex other than their initial physical genitalia, whereas as far as I’m concerned, if you don’t have the penis or the testosterone anymore (to grossly oversimplify), then it doesn’t matter what you used to be.
And legally, how do you prosecute someone for not disclosing they’re a man, when they’ve legally been recognised as a woman?
This is the core of the matter - the law is inconsistent with the notion of my body my choice, because it provides cover for those who say "your body, my choice".
The law is at fault because it allows transgenders to prey on heterosexuals, while specifically not allowing heterosexuals an avenue to avoid being predated by transgenders.
This can be also seen with the growing trend towards transgenders in female sports - men who become women would appear to have an unfair advantage, but the law overrides that because it is only concerned with the rights of an individual to claim they are who they feel themselves to be. Illogical consequences stemming from that, indicate an ill fitting law.
How many people who are offered oral sex are going to ask, "okay, but do you have penis?"
That tends to be a mood-killer.
If you care enough about it, to the point where you might stomp someone’s head in should they answer in the affirmative, I reckon you’d probably be better off offending the other party and going without.
This is the same excuse lobbied during the AIDS crisis when it was recommended sex not happen without asking for a condom first.
There’s discussion where I live about clear consent needing to be obtained before you have sex with someone you don’t know. So there’s no ambiguity on either side. This could fall under that preliminary discussion.
If you’re not embarrassed to get a BJ in an alley but too embarrassed to ask a few questions, then you’ve got a few issues your own self.
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.
