On Sexual Consent

[steina]

If consent is given to sex and that consent has a proviso, which is purposefully not met... should it become rape/sexual assault?
An example would be Julian Assange style condom deceit.
I'm not sure where I stand on this one so input is appreciated.

Yes Blistory. That's what I was getting at.

Thanks for the answer, LRD
Do you there is an ethical difference between deceit when barrier-method is used and where other (non-barrier) methods are used? Is std transmission the main factor?
Does potential transmission of an STD make someone more or less guilty of sexual assault?

Why are you determined to ignore the risk of pregnancy steina? That is erasing women and the risks they face every time they have PIV sex. Do you not think that matters in these ethical dilemmas you are concocting?

Blistory, well made points. I agree the practicality of policing this kind of thing is nigh on impossible, but it doesn't stop me from taking an ethical position. What does stop me is an inability to make up my mind.

Yes, IMO, STD transmission is an important factor.

If someone consents to sex expecting they'll be protected from STDs and they're not, that is assault. I would say it is rape. I believe in some situations people who knowingly infect others with STDs have been charged with rape, but you'd have to check the exact terms.

If someone consents to sex expecting they'll be protected from pregnancy, that is also an issue. I think it is probably helpful to distinguish between the two, because while as I understand it there are differences in male/female vulnerability to STDs during unprotected sex, there is a big and obvious difference with pregnancy.

But I am still very much working out my own ideas here.

Scallopsgreat, I'm just trying to reach an opinion, I don't think wether a man has had a vasectomy changes his level of guilt regarding sexual assault, this really is only my current opinion though, all of the input has been great.

They are not equal scenarios.

Deliberately lying about taking the pill is in no way morally condonable, but to become a father after having barrier-less sex is a risk you take when you deliberately come inside someone. The physical consequences are all hers too.

Having someone deliberate put sperm into you when they agreed to use a condom, is criminal. And all the physical consequences are, yet again, hers.

Condom failures/accidents are of course a case apart and a risk both parties take.

And in the agreed no-barrier scenario both parties consented to risk STIs.

In the scenario where he does not use a condom after agreeing he would...he has consented to risk STIs, she has not consented to the massive increase in risk.

Not equal.

I'm on my phone and can't link, but the precedent case [that I know of - there may be others] proving the possibility of rape within marriage was based on the fill consent not being given: she'd agreed to - I think - him not ejaculating inside. do a google on "rape within marriage" and I think it'll be there.

I'm not sure about scenarios where one partner in a relationship cheats with a third party and infects the other.

I want to say they should be allowed to prosecute but I suppose the nature of the established relationship would need to be scrutinised in each case i.e you can't have formal 'we agree we will not use condoms' contracts (so anyone transferring an infection after this period can be prosecuted)...could you?!

pedant sorry, yes, I mean the ejaculation in terms of man suddenly being surprised to become a dad after doing it, NOT that's it's ok to not use a condom when you have agreed to as long as you don't come.

I'm making a right hash of these posts...gonna stop there

Ok. Just thinking out loud here.

If rape can be so widely defined that a wilful failure to use protection as agreed, fits the definition, where do we draw the line ?

So if I consent to sex with my husband on the strict basis that he is faithful and doesn't put me at risk and I later find out that he has cheated and has infected me with an STD, does that mean he is guilty of rape on each and every occasion he had sex with me after being unfaithful ?

I think he's guilty of something but there is something going on in my head that stops me from being able to see it as rape. Maybe it's because I think it dilutes what rape is and if we're going to include it in the definition of rape, I can see it as becoming a sliding scale and that opens up the arguments for the MRAs of 'it wasn't rape rape'.

IMHO consent to sex is strictly conditional. So you could very clearly consent to sex only with a condom.

The other way round is tricky - perhaps obtaining goods (semen) by deception In that case he is consenting to putting his unsheathed penis in the woman, so I don't feel it is rape though he may rightly feel violated all the same.

Hmmm, I get that, When but I just can't get my head around the idea that obtaining consent by deception is rape even with the caveat that it's only in cases where the deception has resulted in a real risk of harm being incurred.

If there's no risk of STD (let's pretend he's a responsible guy who is checked regularly or has always previously used condoms) then does that mean there was no risk of harm and therefore no rape but possibly a lesser crime?

I appreciate that I'm excluding pregnancy here but I'm trying this out one step at a time.

I may have to accept that this one is beyond me and refrain from opining in such cases as although I can understand it being rape in some instances, I struggle with others.

Deception is a difficult area. There was a case in Israel I believe where a woman brought a complaint of rape on the grounds that the guy had told her he was Jewish but later turned out not to be. And I don't think that should be counted as rape, any more than a man lying about his marital status should make it rape (makes him a lying cheating arse, but not a rapist).

If someone through deception robs you of the ability to give informed consent then it would fit the legal definition to allow prosecution for rape or sexual assault. At least as far as my reading of the law has taken me.

I personally hate this whole debate, primarily as I am currently raising a child from just such a scenario. It so often gets derailed as some sort of stick to beat women with, and other than myself I know of one other bloke this has happened to. It sucks for me and him, but I have actually lost count of the number of female friends who have suffered rape or sexual assault of some kind. It seems wiser to keep focus on male rape of women.

That said on a very personal note I have dealt with a fair few trying scenarios in my life time up to and including my best friend dying in front of me, and being able to do fuck all about it, caring for a loved elderly relative with Alzheimer's and watching helplessly as they slowly lost themselves to it, so please understand my full meaning when I say the sense of being betrayed and used in this way by someone who purported to love me was the single worst experience of my life. Wether that equates to what a rape victim feels I'm afraid I don't know, but to be honest it's beside the point because rape shouldn't happen, and what happened to me shouldn't happen either.

Just before anyone chimes in with the inevitable condom comment. Absolutely I could have chosen to have worn one and as such was my responsibility not to and I'm taking responsibility for that now. The sticking point for me was I was happy to use them she wasn't, and I did not let it stand at that, I frequently checked verbally on the birth control status and reiterated I was happy to use condoms as I has been in two prior long term relationships where pills and such played absolute havoc with my partners health, so was perfectly happy to use them.

Luckily fatherhood for me has been something I have always desperately wanted, and as such I had considered the potential for happy accidents. However that does not one iota excuse the lies and deception. Is it possible to stand against both women being raped and men being lied to about birth control? If so I choose that.

I wonder (thinking aloud) if it would be better to entirely separate lying about contraception from rape? In the instance of a man lying about using a condom it's rape because he is penetrating a woman with something (an un-condomed penis) she didn't consent to. It would still be rape if he knew he was infertile and clean, so the risks to her health are a separate offense. I also think there should be a distinction between risk of parenthood and risk of pregnancy.

Sorry Dervel

Interesting decision by the Court and I think they got the balance right.

What's disturbing are the comments on the site - seems Canadian MRAs share traits with our homegrown pet trolls.

Interesting. What about the other way around? If a couple have agreed that they are trying to get the woman pregnant, but one of them is lying in that they are secretly using contraception/ have been sterilised or whatever. Is that also an assault? What do people think?

Nice, no I don't think it's an assault because a pregnancy and its risks is not being imposed on someone.

The thread last year where a poster was secretly taking contraception because a pregnancy could harm her but her abusive H didn't care was a case in point.