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?

"...That's not a personal attack within the rules of MN, to my mind, bowl, but report it if you have an issue with it..."

Why am I not surprised that you don't see it as a personal attack.... and no, I dont need to go "tell teacher".

"...You directed your "dim" comment at posters on the thread who disagreed with you in general...."

No I did not. The person knows who they are.

I think we can safely disengage.

If it transpires that women don't actually want to have sex with men who are much older than them and unattractive, then that ruins things for a lot of men who harbour fantasies about what the women they pay for sex think of them.

There's so many interesting threads to this.

Certainly the idea that women might want to have sex with men just because they are well built and good looking seems to be extremely problematic and something that all sorts of practices and social conventions have been built around denying / stopping / stamping out since ever.

But this isn't the "old 'she's up for it'" thing is it?

This is a woman choosing to have consensual sex and choosing not to even so much as glance at the man she's having sex with.

Now if, as is being imploed, there is zero responsibility on her part in this case, where does her responsibilty start?

Surely its her responsibility to ensure that she keeps herself as safe as she can? By perhaps meeting with this person first in a public place?

But his looks and body were irrelevant when they had sex, she was (voluntarily) blidfolded and (assuming) made no objection to the feel of his body. If looks were so important to her, she would have wanted to see?

Isn't this a case of 'consent with conditions'? The woman consented to have sex with him (presumably) because of how he looked - without that it is (highly?) likely consent would have been refused. Therefore, consent was given on the condition that he looked like his photo. As that condition wasn't met, consent wasn't actually obtained, therefore it was rape iyswim?

Maybe, outraged, I'd have to read up on the case again...

I do think that it's right that if you consent on a certain basis, if the other person deliberately and knowingly changes that basis significantly (such as removing a condom) or sets out to deceive you on a significant basis (such as persistently misrepresenting something significant about who they are) then the consent can be judged invalidated.

I've argued before that it might be best to not have a rape charge, in line with some other jurisdictions (maybe Canada?) that have degrees of serious sexual assault instead. Here, causing death by dangerous driving, say, is a different charge to murder, but is still a very serious charge.

In the case of the hotel rape by the man going into the wrong room, he could have then been found guilty of, say, "causing serious sexual assault by recklessness/drunkeness" (there is no doubt that the woman in the case was penetrated without her consent)

And in a case like this, "causing serious sexual assault through deception" could be the charge.

carol so you think that as soon as a person is blindfolded in a sexual encounter it signals consent for anyone to have sex with them?

If my husband tied me up and blindfolded me, and then swapped with one of his mates, that would be AOK as I can't touch him and can't see him?

That's nonsense though isn't it, you don't actually think that.

There also seems to be a strand in here that stems from a problematical idea that it is perfectly OK and reasonable for a man to "get" a woman to "give him" sex by whatever means he can bar violence.

It's the women as gatekeeper thing.

A whole load of toxic ideas about men and women and sex all in one situation and the reactions to it.

This was your post, bowl. It was not specifically directed at whorlpool.

""...What if the picture was of him 30 years ago and he was unrecognisable now. Would it still be rape, as it would still be the same person?..."

Exactly. Some people are just happy being dim. Too busy LOLing to make an actual effort at thinking."

Ooh, yay, I get a dusty wig!

'If it transpires that women don't actually want to have sex with men who are much older than them and unattractive, then that ruins things for a lot of men who harbour fantasies about what the women they pay for sex think of them.'

I think it's pretty well established already that many women don't want to have sex with men much older than them, that's why he did the whole blindfold thing in the first place. I don't think it will do much harm to the fantasies of men who pay for sex. If they can get past the paying part, I'm sure they can ignore this case.

I think that anyone arguing that what a person you are fucking looks like is entirely irrelevant has a very peculiar view of human sexuality, as well, TBH.

Almost as peculiar as the assertion that what people look like is entirely subjective, so who can say that a 30 year old model looks any different to a 70 year old bald man.

"I don't think it will do much harm to the fantasies of men who pay for sex. If they can get past the paying part, I'm sure they can ignore this case."

Yup, I think you're right there!

"....Well you said that what people look like is entirely subjective.

Which is a patently ludicrous thing to say..."

My brother and I see the same person - I think this person looks like David Beckham - my brother thinks I need glasses....

I'm not sure why you're struggling with the idea that people literally SEE things differently (i.e.subjectively). Why is this concept ludicrous to you?

You have a picture of a young male model. With all his hair.
You have a picture of a nearly 70yo man. Bald, fat.

Your response to this is "Whether or not he 'looks' like the model is irrelevant, because what someone 'looks' like is subjective."

Why can't you simply admit that was an absolutely ridiculous thing to write!

Ok I'm going to take an extreme scenario here to see if the no it's not people still think it's not rape...

Mary chats online to Derek. Derek shows her a picture of a model and says it is him.

Mary agrees to meet Derek for blindfolded sex.

Mary takes off blindfold and Derek is her father. Derek knew he was her father and deceived her to have sex with her.

If you honestly think that most people cannot tell the difference between a young male model with all his hair, and a nearly 70yo bald ugly man, then, well, I don't think it bodes well for the reliability of the rest of your posts TBH.

Apart from anything else, the women he tricked into intercourse could tell the difference, otherwise they wouldn't have reported him to the police, would they.

I can't believe you're still trying to present this as a reasonable and valid point.

The degrees of sexual assault thing is interesting Yonic.

But this; 'sets out to deceive you on a significant basis (such as persistently misrepresenting something significant about who they are) then the consent can be judged invalidated' is quite vague in terms of making laws.

What is significant? Age? Religion? Ethnicity? Income? Relationship intentions? Disability? Sex? Sexuality? Height? Weight? Hobbies? Where do we draw the line?

I don't think we want to end up in a place where lying to your sexual partner is illegal do we?

I think the court draws the line, in case law. Just as the court draws the line now as to what "freedom and capacity to consent " means. It doesn't set a blood alcohol level; it deems on a case by case basis if a person is too drunk/stoned/reacting to antihistamines or other medical products etc to consent.

The court judges all sorts of "significant" things.

In employment law - is it a significant variation of someone's terms to changed their working hours from 0900 -1730 to 2100-0530? Yes. To 0830-1700? No. To 1200-2030? Over to the court or a tribunal to rule, taking into account all the other circumstances of the case.

Spider No, still not rape. Mind-bendingly horrifying and disgusting, but not rape. He could be prosecuted for incest though.

I'm assuming Mary is his adult daughter btw.