What do you think of this...(possible rape)

[differentnameforthis]

Now I think this is rape. I appear to be a lone voice however, as most are calling those who fell for this stupid.

Opinions?

Rape?

"If we assert that this case is rape as the man lied about looks, then I think we have to state lying about fidelity is rape, and probably wealth."

This.

Is just wtf.

This man is being prosecuted as he approached hundreds of women to carry out a ruse, which succeeded more than once, where in the context of a sexual encounter, he deceived about something absolutely fundamental to that sexual encounter, without which the women would not have agreed to meet him.

You claim to say well "logically" this means that men must be prosecuted for rape for saying they earn £50K when they earn £45K or if they get off with nora from accounts at the xmas party and don't tell their partners.

Damn right I'm saying that you are trying to minimise what this man did and which he is rightly being prosecuted for and if you think that the man who pulled nora from accounts should also be prosecuted on that basis then I fail to understand your logic.

I think someone is enjoying themselves here TBH.

Thing is some actual real women were actually really assaulted by this man and to play lalalogic and say oh come now don't be so silly (which is what is happening with all this "oh but if that's rape then surely this completely different scenario must be as well stuff is) is to take the piss out of what was done to them.

GraysAnalogy, I looked around for you but this is the only thing I could find that references second wave feminism in the US pushing to rename 'rape' to less loaded terminology. It seems to reference only a single state and focusses on below legal age issues but it was part of a broader nation wide push in liberal states to redefine social conceptualisation of sexual crimes by changing the language used to define them, the relevant section starts on page 16:

www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf

"I find it really bizarre that people are so willing to assert that what a person looks like / how physically attractive they are is of the same relevance to a woman as how much money he has - maybe that even how much money he has is of more relevance."

This.

I don't find it that bizarre tbh.

These people have internalised the misogyny incredibly well, haven't they?

This idea that women have no sexual desires of their own, they are fundamentally all prostitutes, who "hold" sex and will "give" it to men if they feel they are getting something in return. Hence all the talk about "what if he lied about how much money he had" as if that would be, as fundamental, MORE fundamental, than what theman you are actually fucking looks likeand whether you arephysically attracted to him.

IMO that’s the effect of the sexual lie on girls. Boys get told sex has huge value on its own and grow up to be men who feel empty inside no matter how much sex the have. Girls get told sex has little value its own, thus they grow up underestimating the importance of their sexual being and associating it to all manner of things beyond physical desire.

whirlpool, I was absolutely not trying to minimise what this man did. I've been trying to understand because I was never taught about consent, by anyone, and this board has been incredibly helpful to me in the past when trying to figure stuff out. Obviously I've upset people, and I'm really sorry.

Whirlpool I am not minimising what this man did, I have said repeatedly his crime was rape. You are minimising the actions of a married man who knows his wife expects fidelity, but shags Nora from accounts and then goes home and shags his wife.
Do you think she would consent if he told her?
If not, his actions are rape.

Jessica I don't think this is directed at you, more at me.

It would be helpful if poster's referenced who they were responding to so we can have a proper discussion.

"I think someone is enjoying themselves here TBH." I think you are right.

Jessica I don't think Whirlpool was referring your posts either x

Do you think she would consent if he told her? If not, his actions are rape.

Unless of course the wronged spouse were male, caroldecker. Men cannot be 'raped' by women, its often said, though I would love to hear the spin-doctoring on that for your definition of the crime. Perhaps a new term could be created in law to fit the situation: 'envelopment'. Either that or make the case that every unfaithful wife will have been driven to an affair by an utter bastard husband or seduced by a vile cad. But I have always imagined women to have more sexuality and agency than an average house plant, so the second option does not sit well with me.

It was in response to Carol's posts.

Carol do you believe that people who are unfaithful to their spouses should be prosecuted for rape? With no aggravating factors - bigamy (which is already illegal), other deceptions, financial issues etc and so forth.

If a man snogs andrea from accounts at a xmas party (which for some women would be enough to make them not consent to sex the next night) and he doesn't tell her and they have sex the next night, do you think he should be prosecuted for rape?

Because in this thread the question is should this man be done, should he be prosecuted, the law under which he is being prosecuted in the country that he is in, is rape. In a different country it might be a different offence - a sexual assault or a crime of deception or similar. A lot of people say he should not be prosecuted as what he has done should not be considered criminal. You say you agree that he should be prosecuted, and link what he has done to a man snogging carol from accounts and saying that logically must be the same crime.

I am saying that it is not. And I feel uncomfortable with what seems like an effort to get posters to state that they want to see men who are unfaithful to their partners put in prison for rape. Because that sounds like the sort of extraordinary stance that people like to pretend feminists hold, when in fact they don't (or at least this one doesn't).

A lot of things that didn't used to be crimes, are now crimes. Things are moving. So marital rape, continuing with sex after consent has been withdrawn, these things didn't used to be considered particularly bad, now the former is generally accepted as rape and the second more people are coming round to that way of thinking but it is slow.

I can't see, however, and don't think we would want to see, a situation where people were sent to prison for snogging someone who wasn't their partner.

Although it would be nice to get to a point where people generally conducted themselves with more integrity and honesty - this applies across everything though not just sex.

Whirlpool I am not trying to get anyone to say anything. I am following a logical train of thought on where I stand and appreciate the thoughts of others, even if they disagree.
Your example is snogging someone from accounts. What if a husband gets an STD from a partner and infects his wife leading to infertility? How is that not a crime?

No your example was around infidelty.

I mentioned "no other aggravating factors" also in my post, when I asked you a question, which you haven't answered.

People have been successfully prosecuted for knowingly infecting others with STDs by the way.

Also following the STD line of thought. On Chlamydia, which can cause infertility, there is a very high rate amongst young people. Some stats are here.

It also includes this note:

"Prevalence estimates suggest that young people aged 15–24 years acquire half of all new STDs1 and that 1 in 4 sexually active adolescent females have an STD, such as chlamydia or human papillomavirus (HPV).2"

That is an awful lot of people to criminalise. In addition:

I note you talk about "wives". What about non married couples, men who pick something up, shorter term relationships, one night stands? Have you a level of relationship in mind before you criminalise?

You don't have anything in there about knowing you are infected. So if person A has sex with person B, and gives them an STD, and person B does not know this and gives it to person C, should person C be prosecuted?

Your plan will criminalise vast numbers of the population. Is this proportionate?

I think you need to firm up in your own mind some specifics. There are questions of proportionality, intent, aggravating factors and so on and so forth, which you don't seem to be taking on board. For example initially you talk about infidelity only meaning that a rape has been committed, now you add STDs and infertility to the mix. You have moved the goalposts and then demanded an answer, yet you haven't answered questions put to you.

Sorry it should be, should person B be prosecuted, there.

The question I think you asked was should people who are unfaithful be prosecuted for rape.
I don't think aggrevating factors should play a role, rape is rape.
If we believe that rape is where a woman would not consent to sex if they knew information that the man knowingly withheld, then we have to say that where a man is unfaithful and sleeps with thier partner without telling them would, in most cases, be rape.
The fact this means most/a lot of men does not stop it being wrong.

DWH, a woman having sex on a man without his consent is subject to a sexual assault charge which carries penalties as severe as those for a rape charge. Rape in the UK means penetration with a pen is without consent. Some jurisdictions include penetration with objects as rape. Others define all un consenting sex involving penetration as rape. Others have varying degrees of sexual assault charges.

What it doesn't mean is that a uk woman committing sexual assault by having sex without consent is not considered to have committed a serious crime.

I really like Buffy's thoughts about relationship vs sexuality and agree that it's important not to confuse the two.

For me the difference in adultery vs this situation is in the intent of the man. I don't believe that the average adulterous person then sleeps with their regular partner with the sole purpose of the adultery and subsequent lies being to remove the option of consent from that person. In this case, the actions the man took did do that. He aimed specifically at having sex with women without receiving consent at all- and his actions prove that he didn't expect them to consent to having sex with him.