Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sex by deception

162 replies

RepeatAfterUs · 15/07/2018 18:09

Following on from an earlier thread I this point below is in LGBT Labour's manifesto (thanks bd67th who linked)

Point 14: Review the law relating to legal issues of consent to rape and sexual offences to 'sex by deception' in order to remove potential discrimination and criminalisation of trans/gender variant people....

Now I might have heatstroke and I'm not 100% sure what that's saying...

However-Sec 74 Sexual Offences Act talks about consent and consent is:
Agreeing by choice
Freedom to choose (no duress or threats)
To have made a reasoned, informed decision
ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT

I think the manifesto is taking issue with the last point-"informed". And consent applies to all sexual activity not just rape. So for instance a lesbian has a sexual encounter with a TW who doesn't disclose that they are a TW so the lesbian thinks it's another woman. Did the lesbian consent to sexual activity with a male? No. So the sexual activity would be an assault on the lesbian.

I think they want to over turn this protection which is pretty sick IMO

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lgbtlabour/pages/223/attachments/original/1446055384/Securing_Trans_Equality_(October_2015).pdf?1446055384

OP posts:
HotRocker · 15/07/2018 19:38

I’m sure most men would be fine if it was against the law for women to lie about whether they are virgins. They wouldn’t like it so much if women started demanding they only sleep with virgins. In fact if women started saying no at the bedroom door because the man isn’t a virgin, there’d be a lot more rapes and violennce.

Loandbeholdagain · 15/07/2018 19:39

Hot rocker- the virgin thing is a total red herring.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/07/2018 19:42

I also wonder how we're meant to prove that someone lied about being a virgin. Bloody sheets test? It's all a bit medieval.

RepeatAfterUs · 15/07/2018 19:42

The whole culture of obtaining sex by deception needs to go to be honest.
It's not an "anti-trans" law. It's already part of the Sexual Offences Act. The case with the female pretending to be male in Liverpool - she was convicted of assault by penetration so that sets a precedent that where the defendant lies about their sex, consent is absent.

OP posts:
TransExclusionaryMRA · 15/07/2018 19:47

I believe having sex without disclosing known std status can lead to actual bodily harm charges.

HotRocker · 15/07/2018 19:48

I met my current partner online. I have a disability that severely affects my life, and I also have a psychiatric illness that can cause real problems from time to time. I told her before we met in person, because I didn’t want to put her in an awkward position being faced with a disability that she wasn’t aware of, but I also told her because if it was a problem for her, I didn’t want to go any further and get hurt. It’s basic human decency and common sense, and if I enter into a relationship with someone, then find out later something about them that I consider very important or a deal breaker, I’d be very suspicious of their motives. If someone does that, it just tells me that they can’t be trusted.

duckfuckduck · 15/07/2018 19:51

That virgin declaration comment by Snappity is one of the most offensive things I have ever read on here.

thebewilderness · 15/07/2018 19:54

This sort of thing has hitherto been confined to the deepest, dankest corners of inceldom and 4chan. Most troubling to see it make its way to the mainstream and who is supporting it. Male supremacist ideologies are unpleasant things at the best of times but there are times when it's nigh on impossible not to do a bit of sick in your mouth at the things deemed "reasonable".

I thought the MRAs and TRAs wanted to roll women's rights back to the 1850s but I see now they are aiming for the 1500s.

Snappity · 15/07/2018 20:01

How is that equivalent to not declaring medical status that would give me a life changing disease?

Everyone is agreed on the disease thing.

But the big question is if you have sex and fail to disclose something which, if disclosed, might have meant the other partner wouldn't agree to sex, should that be criminal? I see arguments both ways but picking out trans history as one of the few things which must be disclosed is wrong. If informed consent is the standard then the scope should be broad.

Baumederose · 15/07/2018 20:02

If you are arguing for informed consent as an overarching principle, that has to include any issue you personally perceive as relevant, No?

If that includes knowing the number of previous partners to make consent informed for you personally, how is that different to anything else?

Whether you agree the previous partners question should be asked in the first place is not the point. The question is about informed consent.

If I personally deem that information necessary to make my consent informed, that's my prerogative. It's not up to anyone to tell me what information is or is not relevant for me to make an informed decision based on my system of values.

If I decide informed consent to me means that person has never been on an aeroplane, for example, that's up to me as an individual to decide. If I find out they've been on Concorde, they've deceived me and my decision wasn't informed.

duckfuckduck · 15/07/2018 20:06

Snappity please don't quote me only in part. If you are going to persist in quoting me, please quote the whole post. Otherwise, It's misquoting me.

duckfuckduck · 15/07/2018 20:07

I'm interested in why you picked natal female virginity as one of the things you mentioned Snappity. Why is that?

Wanderabout · 15/07/2018 20:10

Nobody is 'picking out trans history' they are saying everyone needs to be honest about their bio sex before another person can give informed consent to sleep with them.

fedupandwornout · 15/07/2018 20:11

It is (almost) unbelieveable that at the same time as we have campaigns to improve people's, especially young people, understanding of the need for clear consent and enthusiastic consent, we have some groups pressing for the exact opposite.

Trans status should not be a secret that deceives people.

snappity Informed consent does already cover deceptions like omitting to mention HIV status etc.

Individual cases will be tried on aspects such as whether it could have been reasonably foreseen that had the facts been disclosed it would have led the individual to make a different choice, like the police undercover example. Most people would think twice if they knew the truth. Not least becasue htey coul be harmed if others found out.

Prosecutions will be based on what the parties knew about each other prior to the act, or tired to establish, and/or what a reasonable person might think/do/ consent to as a result. And the average 'man in the street' is going to be pretty bloody furious to find that he has received a blow job or whatever from a male who is deliberately concealing that fact, knowing that the recipient beleives them to be a biological woman. Or vice versa. It is horrible way to behave.

I have had men lie to try to have relationships with me, and sadly suceed and it is an apalling and a violating experience, albeit not at the level of actual rape. But also when you experience lies repeatedly it can have a serious effect.

Personally, I do think that if you know for sure that someone for religious (or other wierd/ unwierd) reasons has a particular requirement eg virginity (however apalling that may be in itself) or is of a particular religion maybe, and you deliberately deceive them then you should be liable under the law. Sex is optional and if you lie or lie by omission, then you would be denying that person the ability to give informed consent. It would be bad enough if done to gain money but for sex is incredibly personal.

f course if you had no way of predicting such an unusual and uncommon requirement then you are not guilty. The case would turn on whether it could be proven that the person knew what facts were relevant or important to a person beforehand ( eg on a dating site where seomeone says looking for a LTR and singles or states religious requirements!) and still went ahead with the deception, or whether the other person had made any attempts to state their unusual requirments, or whether a reasonable person could have reasonably expected/ predicted that soemthing would be a factor. In this day and age no reasonable person would assume person was a virgin unless they were under 16 or 18 or around that age. It would be up to them to state if it was important to them. But again, if asked and you lie and the act goes ahead, you have gained (taken) sex by deception and that to me is wrong.

I think it is horrifying that any man would sleep with a woman on the pretext of natural sperm donation knowing that this cold not happen, when they would have specifically been made aware of it. That is rape in my view.

I appreciate that it must be difficult for trans people to meet people who will date them givne their circumstances, but this is not any kind of excuse for deliberately decieving people.

Sex should be about respect whether a one-off or in a realtionship. Lying in any way is utterly shitty.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 15/07/2018 20:12

Nobody is 'picking out trans history' they are saying everyone needs to be honest about their bio sex before another person can give informed consent to sleep with them

Oh i see wander

So it could be something that people of all sexes would say, which would certainly make it 'fair'

pombear · 15/07/2018 20:13

I wish I had a big 'bullshit' klaxon for some posts.

So, according to Snappity, it's unfair that people with a penis should have to declare they have one before potential sex with people who explicitly exclude penises from their sex life. 'Cos it's mean and unfair.

Because, if that had to happen, Snappity says, disclosure should be for all:
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. The same with known infertility for anyone wanting a family.

Are you really OK saying a virgin must highlight they are a virgin before they have sex, in case a Christian or Muslim person is horrified that they are not a virgin (given that this is almost 100% skewed in these religions to females having to be 'virgins' at marriage, not males, this is horrifying in its patriarchal values).

Are you really saying an infertile person must declare their lack of fertility each time before having sex. What? In case the person they are having sex with really wanted to concieve during that specific act?

And are you really conflating the two examples above with the fact that otherwise it's unfair that someone with a penis should declare they have a penis before attempting to have sex with someone who has specifically declared that they only want to have sex with people without penises?

Wow! Sunstroke?

theOtherPamAyres · 15/07/2018 20:13

The paper is a wish-list from 2015.

It's interesting but it's not relevant or worth getting worked up about, in my view.

We need to keep focussing on the Government's proposals not every piece of fantasy writing coming from a sub-group of a sub-group, on the fringes of political parties.

Maryzsnewaccount · 15/07/2018 20:14

I dunno duck. It's offensive ok, but not a patch on the vagina/infertility/cancer/intersex comments that we've seen recently.

Few of which are deletable seemingly Confused

LastTrainEast · 15/07/2018 20:22

"Previous partners" is surely irrelevant. Assuming no disease (which is already covered) number of previous partners has no bearing on this encounter.

Finding out that the woman you are in bed with is a man or vice versa is relevant.

I agree there may need to be some strengthening generally of the law.

Look seriously we all know what deception is and if we are guilty of it. Laws have to be written carefully to define crimes, but anyone hiding a wedding ring, a rash or a their genitals knows they are tricking someone.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/07/2018 20:24

Do you want those comments deleted? I don't. They're very useful to those new to the debate who may not yet quite understand what it's being demanded that they pretend to believe in order to be "kind".

LassWiADelicateAir · 15/07/2018 20:31

Nobody is 'picking out trans history' they are saying everyone needs to be honest about their bio sex before another person can give informed consent to sleep with them

And other factors such as HIV status or other known contagious sexual diseases which have a direct impact.

Being or not being a virgin or having had dozens of previous partners or being married or lying about being rich or having flown on Concorde does not. It is up to adults to make their mind up from the person right there in front of them if they want to have sex with that person or not.

In the case of the "insemination by donor" situation this must be a vanishgly rare situation.

Frankly if insemination is needed by a means other than by way of having a male partner (or a willing friend and a turkey baster) sticking to properly controlled donor semen is so blindingly obviously the safe choice that I would be inclined to exclude it as well. Women need to think seriously about the risks they are letting themselves in for if they choose this.

Maryzsnewaccount · 15/07/2018 20:37

Oh God, no, I don't want them deleted, I haven't reported any of them.

I'm just surprised they aren't deletable. I find it hard to understand that the 3-strikes haven't been reached yet for some posters - but of course not allowing us to search for "message deleted by Mumsnet" any more means we can't count easily so I suppose they may not have had three deletions Hmm

Snappity · 15/07/2018 20:37

So, according to Snappity, it's unfair that people with a penis should have to declare they have one before potential sex with people who explicitly exclude penises from their sex life. 'Cos it's mean and unfair.

Then how about a system in which a prospective partner can explicitly say "These are my redlines - do any apply?" And the yes/no answer has to be truthful. That can include trans status if that is one of the things which matters but also anything else that the prospective partner sees as a redline (eg infidelity) . But it isn't discriminatory by design and embeds informed consent at a personal level

OvaHere · 15/07/2018 20:40

This was in various papers today. It's a shame the government can't be consistent on the message of consent.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955437/Children-young-four-consent-lessons-counter-soaring-number-sex-assault-cases.html

LassWiADelicateAir · 15/07/2018 20:40

Are you really OK saying a virgin must highlight they are a virgin before they have sex, in case a Christian or Muslim person is horrified that they are not a virgin

They could call it The Angel Clare offence. And of course as with the odious Angel Clare it would not apply to male non- virgins.

Laws have to be written carefully to define crimes, but anyone hiding a wedding ring... knows they are tricking someone

Sorry but that one is just tough luck. If you are going to have casual sex with someone you don't know well that's a risk you take. It won't harm you and if it bothers you get to know the person.