Consent issues.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

Thanks inthered

When the read rather!

Sodding autocorrect.

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.

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?

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.

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

Apparently there is insufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of conviction

Uh What!?

Is a human child not sufficient evidence?

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.

Unsurprising Capt.

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

I thought it was an offence to have sex with someone by using false pretences? I'm absolutely baffled how these police officers can't be charged - it's the very text book example of it, surely?!

I would love to know why the CPS are saying they can't charge them. It seems so cut-and-dried from where I am sitting.

Because they protect their own?

I don;t understand how they can claim there isn't enough evidence, when this was a thought out plan by a police department, so planned in advance and then carried out. The evidence is surely the fact that this was even a police operation to begin with?

I would just like to point out that. WRT to the 'trans teen' thread, it is not known by anyone on the thread whether the child in question is transmale or one of those rare but not unheard of incidences of someone born with ambigious genitalia and assigned female at birth. The OP in that thread is basically a nosy parker determined to intervene in something that is none of his/her business. None of us have examined that child's genitals, and I sincerely hope the OP has not, as the OP has said nothing to suggest that s/he would have any right or reason to know the configuration of the child's genitalia/secondary sexual characteristics.

Regarding the OP on this thread: I agree that having sex with someone when you know, and haven't informed your partner, that you have an active, untreated STI is criminally irresponsible and rightly classed as assault.

Other stuff can get a bit murkier. There was a thread a few years back (yes, I know, have been on MN far too long) started by a woman who had been on a date with a transman, and some posters were saying that the transman should have announced his status right at the beginning. I pointed out that a first date is about getting to know the other person and, when you have something 'different' about yourself, you might not want to share this information until you are sure the other person is someone you can trust with the information. You might not be sure, over the first couple of dates, whether the other person will respect your privacy, or whether s/he will not only dump you but be Tweeting about your secret as s/he walks out the door - and if you decide or discover that your new date is indiscreet or a bigot or a spiteful gossip, you should be able to politely call a halt to the relationship without having put yourself in a position that allows the other person to humiliate you in public.

Most people who date a bit will have one or two dates with someone they realised early on was not just'not really my type' but a raging arsehole, and therefore not taken the relationship any further.

I also think the deep-cover police relationships are unethical, but I am inclined to blame the police policies that set such situations up in the first place as much if not more than the individual officers. It must be enormously lonely, stressful and frightening for them and therefore not that surprising that they may form relationships with some of the target group. In some cases it might be a lot safer for them to do so than have other members of the group speculate that they are gay, for example.
That doesn't make it all right for them to do it, but it does make it understandable.

The OP in that thread is basically a nosy parker determined to intervene in something that is none of his/her business.

If a child is at risk of emotional harm it should be everyone's business. Thanks for dredging it up again though. Helpful.

Not sharing every detail of your past on the first date is very different to beginning a sexual relationship with someone whilst deceiving them about your biological sex.
Anyway, I can't be arsed to go over it again.