Sex by deception

I just think it's quite patronising to people who have suffered real sexual assault(like me) by saying that a trans person not disclosing their genitals before sex is committing sexual assault.

I think plenty of women here have been sexually assaulted. I have been sexually assaulted on a number of occasions. I would feel violated and would see it as sexual assault if a trans person didn't disclose that information before having sex with me.

Dammit!!

Too late...i left

The child maintance could be covered by fraud for financial gain

No it wouldn't.The law, like me, assumes that anyone up for having sex accepts the potential for consequences 9 months later. The law on maintenance is not interested in who said what or how the child was conceived. See Boris Becker's broom cupboard tryst. This is how it should be .

Dammit!

I disagree re vasectomy. They very occasionally fail.

Anyone agreeing to have sex should do so knowing that there is a potential for pregnancy.

A sexually transmissable disease is not self - evident but beyond that anyone contemplating having sex should make their mind up on the basis of what they see before them. If the single, Christian, multi- millionaire turns out to be an unemployed, atheist, married job-seeker with a poor credit history - tough luck. Do your due diligence a bit more thoroughly if it's important to you.

The child maintance could be covered by fraud for financial gain

Which probably doesnt mean anything

"a) yes he's putting her at risk of pregnancy
b) he's not at risk of pregnancy. Birth control is fallible so he's choosing to take risk. Might have a case 're child maintenance."

Sorry but I don't agree. Vasectomies are also not 100% accurate, and I think the woman would be just as bad as the man in this situation because it's not just 'child maintenance' a child is a huge commitment that will change your life in a massive way. Obviously affects the woman more but I don't know why you would suggest that the man is committing sexual assault and not the woman when both would not have consented if they knew the truth?

TacoLover

And if we're following the same thing here, if a man told a woman he'd had a vasectomy but didn't and they had sex, would that be sexual assault? What about if a woman told a man she was on birth control but wasn't?
a) yes he's putting her at risk of pregnancy
b) he's not at risk of pregnancy. Birth control is fallible so he's choosing to take risk. Might have a case 're child maintenance.

And if we're following the same thing here, if a man told a woman he'd had a vasectomy but didn't and they had sex, would that be sexual assault? What about if a woman told a man she was on birth control but wasn't?

Did the lesbian consent to sexual activity with a male? No. So the sexual activity would be an assault on the lesbian.

I'm confused here; are you saying that in this scenario the lesbian decided not to have sex after realising that the TW had a penis but the TW decided to rape her anyway? Or are you saying that the TW performed oral sex on her without her knowing that the TW had a penis? Because these two situations are very, very different(sorry haven't had time to read the full thread). It's not sexual assault to not disclose your genitals before performing oral sex, especially if the TW didn't even know that they are a lesbian, therefore didn't know that it would be an issue. I wouldn't have consented to having sex with my DH if i knew that he had (hypothetically) called me a bitch yesterday, but that doesn't make it sexual assault.

According to the vast majority of posters on here, they have a special womanly spidey sense which tells them who is biologically male, and apparently they would be able to use it on any TW (essentially many on here believe that TW can never truly 'pass') so if it's so obvious who is male and who isn't, surely they would ask? I just think it's quite patronising to people who have suffered real sexual assault(like me) by saying that a trans person not disclosing their genitals before sex is committing sexual assault.

Sex by deception is pretty much rape as far as I'm concerned.

Surely the rationale behind needing to disclose if you are trans is that it us not OK to expose someone to you penis/vagina without them consenting to it and them consenting in the expectation that you will have a different organ doesn't count?

How much money you have, whether you are married, if you are a virgin, how many sexual partners you have had - all apply to whether you want to enter a relationship with someone. Not sex. You don't stop wanting to have sex with someone because they have less money in the bank or because they are married. You might make a conscious decision not to enter a sexual relationship with a married man based on your own moral compass, but it doesn't change the fact that you fancy them and want to have sex with the

Getting sucked of by a biological man who has a penis when your are firmly hetro, is not the same as shagging someone who turns out to work in tesco when you thought he was a millionare playboy.

Indeed, quite right.

Lots of women don't say no at that point as subconsciously they are afraid, or don't want to be rude / hurt feelings (heavy socialisation) + there is the dynamic esp for women who have been assaulted in the past that saying yes when they don't want to is better than saying no and being forced.

This may come into play less with lesbians as they dont' interact sexually with men out of choice, are less likely to have been in situations where physical force / strong coercion / physical threat etc are brought into play. Women generally being less violent and sexually entitled than men. And looking at the stats.

I'm not actually referring to the idea of sex by deception. I absolutely think someone should disclose their sex, before having sex. If there is any reason to doubt it.

It's often very dangerous for women to deny a man sex at the point at which it is expected it will commence.

Because it evolves into desperate nonsense that can't be taken seriously.

I hope so! Quite a bit of nonsense seems to have been taken seriously by a lot of well-meaning people so far!

Over the last couple of weeks they have been becoming more and more extreme and random.

Presumably because people aren't turning round and frothing a whole load of vitriol at trans people in general, which is what Snappity is hoping they'll do.

Snappity jumped the shark over the infertile woman nonsense. Now they've got nowhere to go other than more shark jumping.

It's characteristic of this kind of thing that the more extreme they become the less offended people are. Because it evolves into desperate nonsense that can't be taken seriously.

Yes quite.

Absolutely they should stand.

Over the last couple of weeks they have been becoming more and more extreme and random.

I think snappity's posts are awesome TBH.

Awesome in a peak transing sort of way. Yes, awesome in that regard for sure.

It should be remembered that we have plenty of ultra religious sects in operation in the UK, where the virgin issue would be material

• families / communities which have different ideas around this (we have seen plenty in the news about so called honour crime)

This is a non trivial pronouncement from snappity.

Girls (only girls) in these communities have the option of rock or hard place - punishment / excommunication / etc or prison.

Only an MRA would say that an 18yo who has grown up as part of an ultra religious sect, who has been raped as a child and is having an arranged marriage, must tell what has happened and accept the punishment, or must be imprisoned for rape.

They only see things from a male perspecitve. Some men want virgins. This is understandable and important, so women and girls who lie are comitting a crime and must be punished.

This is how it already works in lots of places in the world where women are beaten, raped, imprisoned, stoned, executed for not being virgins when they are not married.

I think snappity's posts are awesome TBH.

... sarcasm?

UglyCath - correct.

You must divulge, or go to prison for rape.

@Snappity
If the principle is that there needs to be informed consent before sex then absolutely it must include virginity. For many Christians and Muslims that's still very important

^^
So in your world I would need to tell my Christian partner that my father raped me, thus robbing me of my virginity, or we would be having non consensual sex?

How much money you have, whether you are married, if you are a virgin, how many sexual partners you have had - all apply to whether you want to enter a relationship with someone. Not sex. You don't stop wanting to have sex with someone because they have less money in the bank or because they are married. You might make a conscious decision not to enter a sexual relationship with a married man based on your own moral compass, but it doesn't change the fact that you fancy them and want to have sex with them.

If some one had or did not have a penis - that is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people in regards to sex. Along with infectious disease.

Alot of people feel very strongly about their sexuality and for whatever reason don't want to have sex with either males or females. They have the right to make that decision. Saying I don't want to have sex with someone that has or has ever had a penis is not the same as - I only want to date virgin because I don't believe in sex before marriage.

Getting sucked of by a biological man who has a penis when your are firmly hetro, is not the same as shagging someone who turns out to work in tesco when you thought he was a millionare playboy.

Incedetially, when I was 16 and at school I met a man in a nightclub, I told him I was 19 and at university. We went out a few time and had sex a number of times. Does this make me a rapist? No. Would he have still got involved knowing I was 16, maybe not. But you consent to sex with the body. That's why "she told me she was 16" when she is clearly 12 doesnt work as a defence for pedos.