Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Consent issues.

68 replies

MrsTerryPratchett · 17/08/2014 03:01

There have been a few posts/news stories recently and I wanted to work some issues through with you.

  1. Police officers having relationships with women to infiltrate gangs or similar.
  1. Transgender teen tells GF he is and has always been a 'boy' when he was born with a vagina/vulva (I have no vocabulary for this, apologies to all). They are having a sexual relationship.
  1. Person with HIV/other STD lies/omits and infects someone.

My feeling is that if I choose to have ONS/indiscriminate sex, I'm allowed, no harm done. If someone is actively lying and I would NOT consent to sex if I knew the truth, there is a consent issue. In the case of the transgender teen, where he feels he is not lying but the other teen might feel differently, the issues are even more murky.

What do you think?

OP posts:
ThatBloodyWoman · 21/08/2014 14:19

Unsurprising Capt.

People don't expect much nore from the Met these days.
Same old, same old.

WhatWitchcraftIsThis · 21/08/2014 14:02

Also about the OP, I think police officers who are getting their way with women while using information they have gathered through their work... it is dodgy as fuck and to me seems an abuse of their position and so much so that a woman can't give informed consent.

WhatWitchcraftIsThis · 21/08/2014 14:00

Uh What!?

Is a human child not sufficient evidence?

WhentheRed · 18/08/2014 00:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Poofus · 18/08/2014 00:29

Yes, that part of the McNally case is what's bothering me too.

Original poster
MrsTerryPratchett · 18/08/2014 00:09

Post fail! The Court seems to be saying that if someone is deceived about the fundamentals of what the sex is based on, there is a consent issue. You could, I think, argue that in the case of the Met.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsTerryPratchett · 18/08/2014 00:07

I think there is another interesting issue with the McNally case. If someone states that they have been male since birth, even though he has a vagina, and the law upholds that, is the victim's view that the vagina is the issue, not the stated gender of the attacker upheld or not.

her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellant's deception. Which implies that if the deception, in this case gender but it could be marital status; intentions/job (in the case of the Police); contraceptive status... I think the pill one might be a straw man because how on earth would you prove someone was or wasn't taking their pill at the time of conception?

OP posts:
Lweji · 18/08/2014 00:06

If you purposefully withhold information from a prospective sexual partner which might make that person not want to sleep with you, then you are having sex using deceit, which, if not actual rape, is sailing bloody close to it.

While I agree, I don't see it realistically being implemented, as the courts would start filling up with legal actions over liars.

CaptChaos · 17/08/2014 23:13
Grin
SevenZarkSeven · 17/08/2014 23:12

Sodding autocorrect.

SevenZarkSeven · 17/08/2014 23:12

When the read rather!

SevenZarkSeven · 17/08/2014 23:11

Thanks inthered

WhentheRed · 17/08/2014 22:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Poofus · 17/08/2014 22:29

But from what Seven said above,

The trans things were because the girl had consented to something which did not happen IIRC they consented to penetration with a penis but that's not what they were penetrated with

This made it sound as if the dildo was the issue rather than the sex of the person doing the penetrating...

CaptChaos · 17/08/2014 22:00

I agree with Buffy. If you purposefully withhold information from a prospective sexual partner which might make that person not want to sleep with you, then you are having sex using deceit, which, if not actual rape, is sailing bloody close to it.

And no poofus, not the same.

Poofus · 17/08/2014 21:50

I find it very hard to think through the two girls penetration with a dildo case that cadno linked to above (the McNally case). So is it only rape because M consented to be penetrated with a penis, not a dildo? I mean, if the defendant HAD actually been a boy, but still penetrated her with a dildo not his penis, it would still be rape? This then seems that the gender of the defendant is not relevant at all - just that the sex act was with the wrong item, as it were.

ThatBloodyWoman · 17/08/2014 19:50

I think one of the most disturbing aspects of this is that none of this would have been volunteered if the Met hadn't been caught with their pants down (again).
These women were trying to save the planet and were victims of men getting their rocks off, being paid for it, no questions asked.

This isn't the uncovering of some dodgy tactics by some police officers that no one knew about.
This goes right to the top.Mark my words.

MoreCrackThanHarlem · 17/08/2014 18:40

I agree with Buffy.
If withholding information about sexual health, or identity could lead to the partner suffering physical or emotional harm, it is a consent issue.

Lying about marital status, number of previous partners etc is less serious though still demonstrates lack of moral compass in most cases.

The police case is disgusting. Deceit so complex the women involved believed they were part of a family unit with these men? Appalling, however 'noble' the cause.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 17/08/2014 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThatBloodyWoman · 17/08/2014 17:37

I think when it comes to the police infiltrators, it is a very different case to between two 'ordinary' people.What happened in these cases was state sanctioned -a deliberate attempt to mislead in the name of 'intelligence'.
There are undoubtedly consent issues there imo.

Original poster
MrsTerryPratchett · 17/08/2014 17:28

Sorry, different time zone. Yes, I meant informed consent. Specifically, when the person would have withheld consent had they known everything, and the other person knows this. I can see that there are stupid examples (I didn't know you were really a brunette) but in the case where a person knows they would not receive consent were they to tell the truth and they lie.

In a ONS scenario, I know that I know relatively little about the person and am consenting based on that. That's why I mentioned a ONS. In the examples in the OP, I mean anything from one sexual act to a lifetime in these cases.

The woman not on the pill example is a good one and would also fit with what I am saying.

OP posts:
SevenZarkSeven · 17/08/2014 16:40

FWIW these women wouldn't be suing if they had a ONS, they wouldn't even know for a start. One of these women was looking for her "missing" partner for years. That is a lot of anguish to have been caused on behalf of you and me.

SevenZarkSeven · 17/08/2014 16:39

Hmm I think the OP needs to confirm that I wouldn't want to talk for her.

In the case of the police officers it wasn't a ONS as you are getting at in your post, it was a little more involved than that. I think people expect a higher standard of honesty (or at least not to be misled) depending on the depth of the relationship and to agree to have children with someone, who is lying about who they are as part of their tax-paid role.... that just seems like a terrible breach of trust to me. Would these women have consented to the various activities up to and including marriage / children if they knew they were lying about the whole thing, were actually spying on them? No of course they wouldn't. It's a bit different to telling a ONS you're an investment banker.

Lweji · 17/08/2014 16:18

But is that an issue of consent or informed consent?

Are we supposed to divulge everything before having sex in case the other person would be put off by anything in our previous or current life?