Lying to/manipulating others to get sex = rape? - Split from CU

[Vanguard1917]

Which is an apolopgy for rape. Anyone who tries to argue that manipulation isn't a form of coercian is a rape apologist.

...

Using emotional or intellectual manipulation to get sex from someone who wouldn't other give persmission to have is rape. This is the problem with rape culture and rape apologists, they trz to confuse the issues. This isn't about how violent the act is, it's about agency i.e. a persons' ability to freely and clearly make decisions about what goes inside them.

You're using loaded language without giving any specific examples of what you mean. What does 'emotional or intellectual manipulation to get sex' involve? 'Emotional manipulation' as in telling a girl you love her just to get into her knickers? We're going to be giving rape charges to people who are merely arseholes?

I think you need to think about what rape actually is, and consider what the ramifications would be of your wide stretching of its definition.

[The Feral Underclass]

You're using loaded language without giving any specific examples of what you mean. What does 'emotional or intellectual manipulation to get sex' involve? 'Emotional manipulation' as in telling a girl you love her just to get into her knickers? We're going to be giving rape charges to people who are merely arseholes?

Actually, I have been quite specific already. The problem is, of course, that you are trying to justify abusive behaviour. Yes, lying to someone in order to make them think something so you can get what you want -- in other words against their will -- is rape. Making them feel something or believe something in order for you deceptively gain permission to cum inside them is coercian. You are taking sex from them without their consent.

If someone came to your house and conned their way inside so that they can steal your private possessions by telling you their child was sick or you had to have an electricity inspection, this would not make it burglary any less than if they had smashed in your window. The fact that they decieved you so that you would allow them to enter doesn't mean you were any less a victim, and neither would you be any more to blame for it. Yet of course when a woman, for example, is deceived into having sex with a man, this is just playfulness and harmless fun -- it's part of life. Interesting that it's mostly straight men who get to benefit from it and are the ones to perpetuate this myth. Now we see that deception no longer means deception and coercian no longer means coercian.


I think you need to think about what rape actually is, and consider what the ramifications would be of your wide stretching of its definition.

I don't need to think about it any more than I already have done, thanks. If you would like to disagree that rape is defined as having sex with someone without their consent, then by all means disagree with it. You will only continue to be contributing to rape culture and making apologies for rape -- since rape is no longer having sex with someone without their consent I guess we can all just shut up about it.

Your efforts to try and make it seem as if I am obfuscating my point by employing mystical terms and definitions is just more evidence of your attempt to justify what you clearly believe to be okay, or at the very least so insignficant as to practically be redundant. This of course betrays your lack of understanding and experience with dealing with the effects of this kind of abuse.

[Devrim]

Actually, I have been quite specific already. The problem is, of course, that you are trying to justify abusive behaviour. Yes, lying to someone in order to make them think something in order to get what you want -- in other words against their will -- then this is rape. Making them feel something or believe something in order for you deceptively gain their permission for you to cum inside them is coercian. You are taking sex from them without their consent.

I think that this is a very dodgy line to take. Later in the same post you define rape:


rape is defined as having sex with someone without their consent

I totally agree with this. The idea that if somebody lies to somebody then they are not able to given consent is something beyond this. People lie to each other. It is not something to be proud of, but it happens. Having told somebody a lie before going to bed with somebody does not make somebody a rapist.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Actually, I have been quite specific already. The problem is, of course, that you are trying to justify abusive behaviour. Yes, lying to someone in order to make them think something in order to get what you want -- in other words against their will -- then this is rape. Making them feel something or believe something in order for you deceptively gain their permission for you to cum inside them is coercian. You are taking sex from them without their consent.


Out of curiosity, are ANY lies indicative of "coercion"? Did a guy "rape" a woman if he promised her an orgasm and failed to deliver? Did a bisexual man "rape" a gay man who hates bisexuals by saying he was gay, not bi? How do we know if it was the lie that was the decisive factor? Serious question ... because people lie to each other ALL THE TIME to get laid. I mean, we've all seen dating website profiles, right?

Not that I disagree with the OP - NAMBLA is a gross org which does seem to be a cover for rapists, but if lying alone meant rape, most young men and women in college today would be in rape for serial sexual assault. Some lies are obviously indicative of rape, but many of those would be covered under existing rape law (i.e lying about one's age to a minor does not make it rape because it's ALREADY rape). Others don't seem to indicate "rape" at all - just people "improving the goods" to help get themselves a one night stand (did a guy "rape" a woman by lying about his occupation, or did a woman "rape" a man by saying she is 21 instead of 25?)

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that this is a very dodgy line to take. Later in the same post you define rape:



I totally agree with this. The idea that if somebody lies to somebody then they are not able to given consent is something beyond this. People lie to each other. It is not something to be proud of, but it happens. Having told somebody a lie before going to bed with somebody does not make somebody a rapist.

Devrim

And here is the problem. What you're essentially arguing is that someone's agency to make decisions freely is not relevant when it comes to sex.

If we agree that rape is defined as having sex with someone without their consent then manipulating/lying to someone in order to get it, when if they weren't being manipulated/lied to they wouldn't give, constitutes the removal of their agency and their ability to consent -- that is, by the definition you agree with, rape.

Of course the word rape is emotive and conjures up cinematic projections of what people think rape is supposed to look like; naturally people will find understanding rape differently a problem, especially when their experiences are so limited, but this is precisely the point -- that this limited experience and refusal to fully understand what consent and agency is, contributes to the culture of rape, apologises for its existence and provides justification for it to occur.

The fact that people lie to each other is not an argument for why it doesn't constitute rape and it certainly isn't an argument for why manipulating/lying to someone so they will give up their agency is par for the course of life -- it's not! It's highly damaging and traumatic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Out of curiosity, are ANY lies indicative of "coercion"? Did a guy "rape" a woman if he promised her an orgasm and failed to deliver? Did a bisexual man "rape" a gay man who hates bisexuals by saying he was gay, not bi? How do we know if it was the lie that was the decisive factor? Serious question ... because people lie to each other ALL THE TIME to get laid. I mean, we've all seen dating website profiles, right?

It's quite simple to understand really: What I am saying is that any one who knowingly manipulates or lies to someone in order for them to give up their consent is committing an act of sexual violence. That is the basis for understanding consent when involved in any sexual encounter: Is this person giving me their consent or not? The way you know that is if you haven't impeded their ability to do so.

Removing someone's agency to determine when their consent can be given is by definition rape. If you want to re-draw the lines of what rape is and is not then that is up to you, but I would seriously question your motives for doing so.

[Vanguard1917]

Actually, I have been quite specific already. The problem is, of course, that you are trying to justify abusive behaviour. Yes, lying to someone in order to make them think something so you can get what you want -- in other words against their will -- is rape. Making them feel something or believe something in order for you deceptively gain permission to cum inside them is coercian. You are taking sex from them without their consent.

I don't think you're living on planet earth. People - both men and women - bend the truth all the time when they're trying to find a sexual partner. There's even a name for it, i believe: 'dating'. The entire phenomenon is based on what we could call deception: 'present the best possible image of yourself', 'don't discuss your flaws', 'don't let on about your jealous sociopath of an ex-husband', etc, etc.


If someone came to your house and conned their way inside so that they can steal your private possessions by telling you their child was sick or you had to have an electricity inspection, this would not make it burglary any less than if they had smashed in your window. The fact that they decieved you so that you would allow them to enter doesn't mean you were any less a victim, and neither would you be any more to blame for it. Yet of course when a woman, for example, is deceived into having sex with a man, this is just playfulness and harmless fun -- it's part of life. Interesting that it's mostly straight men who get to benefit from it and are the ones to perpetuate this myth. Now we see that deception no longer means deception and coercian no longer means coercian.

Not a valid analogy at all. The thief didn't have my consent to take my possessions.

[The Douche]

Holllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyy shit. What the fuck?

If you lie to somebody in order to get consent, that would otherwise not be given, you do not have consent, ergo you are a rapist.

Lying to somebody to get them into bed is not just some "unfortunate reality", its rape, refusing to call it what it is, is enabling rape culture.

[The Douche]

I don't think you're living on planet earth. People - both men and women - bend the truth all the time when they're trying to find a sexual partner. There's even a name for it, i believe: 'dating'. The entire phenomenon is based on what we could call deception: 'present the best possible image of yourself', 'don't discuss your flaws', 'don't let on about your jealous sociopath of an ex-husband', etc, etc.



Not a valid analogy at all. The thief didn't have my consent to take my possessions.

Jesus fucking christ. The person you fucked didn't give you consent, they gave consent to the false image you constructed. They consented to have sex with a person who does not actually exist. You have manipulated them into having sex, they have not consented of their own free will. Lies or a roofie, it makes no difference.

[ВАЛТЕР]

If you use deceit/force/trickery etc. to get someone to have sex with you, it's rape. I don't understand the confusion here.

If a woman won't sleep with you, you don't go about trying to trick her to do it.

[Vanguard1917]

Jesus fucking christ. The person you fucked didn't give you consent, they gave consent to the false image you constructed.

...

If you lie to somebody in order to get consent, that would otherwise not be given, you do not have consent, ergo you are a rapist.

So a married woman who commits adultery with an unknowing man (who wouldn't have had sex with her is he knew she was married) is a rapist? Who among us has always given a warts-and-all account of ourselves to a person before we've had sex with them? I didn't realise revleft was filled with so many angels from Kingdom Come. Some of us are more judgemental than Catholic priests.

[The Douche]

So a married woman who commits adultery with an unknowing man (who wouldn't have had sex with her is he knew she was married) is a rapist? Who among us has always given a warts-and-all account of ourselves to a person before we've had sex with them? I didn't realise revleft was filled with so many angels from Kingdom Come. Some of us are more judgemental than Catholic priests.

Yes, that woman manipulated that man into having sex with her under flase pretenses.

I'm not holding myself up as a shining beacon of communist morality (I am certainly not such a thing, and I have tons of problematic behaviors), but what you're doing is very, very wrong.

You're defending this fucked up behavior, whereas I can realize where I have done fucked up things in the past, and I can try and take my comrades' advice to heart when they point out how I'm being fucked up now. (which is difficult to do, and doesn't always happen)

Have I, in my youth, manipulated my partners? Yes. Was it wrong? Yes. And if my phone were to ring right now and it was some girl who I hooked up with 8 years ago, and she wanted to confront me and hold me accountable, I would hear her out, because I was wrong, and I victimized her, and if she wanted some sort of public accountability process, I would participate, because thats what it means to overcome rape culture.

[Vanguard1917]

You're defending this fucked up behavior, whereas I can realize where I have done fucked up things in the past, and I can try and take my comrades' advice to heart when they point out how I'm being fucked up now. (which is difficult to do, and doesn't always happen)

I'm not defending the behaviour. I'm saying it might be 'wrong', but it is not rape.


Have I, in my youth, manipulated my partners? Yes. Was it wrong? Yes. And if my phone were to ring right now and it was some girl who I hooked up with 8 years ago, and she wanted to confront me and hold me accountable, I would hear her out, because I was wrong, and I victimized her, and if she wanted some sort of public accountability process, I would participate, because thats what it means to overcome rape culture

So by your own definition you have been a rapist. Wouldn't the best thing be to hand yourself in to the police and convince them that you have raped? Or do you not believe that rapists should be prosecuted by the state? I'm assuming that you will inform all your future partners that you used to be a rapist, otherwise you will have raped them too.

Hence the ludicrous implications of your argument... Virtually the entire sexually active world is guilty of rape.


Yes, that woman manipulated that man into having sex with her under flase pretenses.

Astonishing. Leftists used to condemn bourgeois religious moralists who castigated women for 'crimes' like adultery, the kind of immoral women who apparently lead good honest men astray. Your line of reasoning leads to a modern, liberal version of the medieval attitude to women and sexual conduct in general.

[The Douche]

I'm not defending the behaviour. I'm saying it might be 'wrong', but it is not rape.

Why is it "wrong", in your opinion?


So by your own definition you have been a rapist.

Yes I have violated the principles of consent. I have done things in the past which I now understand to be reprehensible.


Wouldn't the best thing be to hand yourself in to the police and convince them that you have raped? Or do you not believe that rapists should be prosecuted by the state?

1) I don't believe that any help can be found by going to the state 2) the state, like you, believes that what I did is not only not rape, but normal, acceptable, and expected behavior. No, I don't believe rapists should be prosecuted by the state, I believe we should develop ways of dealing with these issues within our own communities. That said, I would not denounce somebody who went to the state because of a rape, since the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.


I'm assuming that you will inform all your future partners that you used to be a rapist, otherwise you will have raped them too.

I have been with the same partner for many years now, and as such, she is intimately familiar with all my problematic behaviors and my problematic past. I am not ashamed to admit that I have these problems (though I do of course feel some shame and remorse when I manifest them into behaviors, despite my attempts not to), more men need to be open and up-front about their problematic behaviors, how else can we overcome them?


Hence the ludicrous implications of your argument... Virtually the entire sexually active world is guilty of rape.

Welcome to patriarchy.


Astonishing. Leftists used to condemn bourgeois religious moralists who castigated women for 'crimes' like adultery, the kind of immoral women who apparently lead good honest men astray. Your line of reasoning leads to a modern, liberal version of the medieval attitude to women and sexual conduct in general.

You introduced the legalist language, not me. I am not a statist, as such, I'm not going to engage with an argument built on statist logic.

A woman who is in a committed monogamous relationship is being a real piece of shit by violating that trust and sleeping with another person. I hope you see the difference, and you weren't just trying to dishonestly label me as anti-woman, when you are the one defending rape culture... (*I'm also not a fucking leftist)

[Vanguard1917]

Why is it "wrong", in your opinion?

Because it's usually not nice to lie. But being 'not nice' and being a rapist are not necessarily the same thing.


Welcome to patriarchy.

But here's the crux of the problem - according to your definition, women are probably just as guilty of rape as men, since there is no reason to believe that women tell lies less than men. That would suggest that, if we use your definition, rape has nothing to do with 'patriarchy'/male social dominance. It is something that women do also.


A woman who is in a committed monogamous relationship is being a real piece of shit by violating that trust and sleeping with another person.

Thank you, Mr Jeremy Kyle.

[The Douche]

Because it's usually not nice to lie. But being 'not nice' and being a rapist are not necessarily the same thing.

You think violating consent = being "not nice".



Eat shit.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's quite simple to understand really: What I am saying is that any one who knowingly manipulates or lies to someone in order for them to give up their consent is committing an act of sexual violence. That is the basis for understanding consent when involved in any sexual encounter: Is this person giving me their consent or not? The way you know that is if you haven't impeded their ability to do so.


So should we do away with lying altogether? Social interaction is full of lying, and people base their emotional happiness on these lies. Or does dishonesty only have this implication regarding consent when it comes to sex? Can I be dishonest to a potential lover to get them to buy me dinner or a drink, but I have to blurt out the truth when they're taking off their clothes to not rape them? There are some lies which I could consider leading to some kind of sexual assault (like, say, what Julian Assange did in telling a woman he was wearing a condom when he wasn't) because a person might be endangering another person (though I don't know if I would classify it as "rape" per se) but this blanket condemnation of all dishonesty seems questionable.

Is any lie thus making everyday sex into rape? The man who tells a woman "I know I can give you an orgasm" or the woman who tells a man "I don't have any kids", even if these lies have no actual impact on the sexual act, their enjoyment of it, risk of pregnancy or risk of spreading an STD? Is a push up bra a lie? A man wearing a sock in his pants? Or plastic surgery? What about obvious omission, i.e if she asks "do you have kids" and the father just changes the topic of conversation instead of answering? What about a throw-away lie, or a white lie, or a lie about something completely irrelevant? How do we even know for sure that the lie was the essential component to consent?

I'm sure you will say I am "blaming the victim" but people don't need to be so gullible. Saying "You shouldn't have been so credulous" is categorically different from "You shouldn't have worn that short skirt" or "You shouldn't have drunk a beer you left alone when you went to the bathroom." Perhaps it's fraud, but it's not rape - a person does not willingly have a rufie, or willingly get sexually assaulted by an armed gang, but they do willingly believe people and give consent based on that belief.

Certain KINDS of dishonesty when it comes to sex are morally repugnant (and may be an "omission of facts" and not a lie). For instance, if a person with HIV, knowing in 2013 what HIV does to people, did not tell their partner, that is repulsive. However, that's not rape, that's endangering the life of one's partner by omitting facts which could prevent them from contracting a lethal disease. But is it rape?


Removing someone's agency to determine when their consent can be given is by definition rape. If you want to re-draw the lines of what rape is and is not then that is up to you, but I would seriously question your motives for doing so.It's not removing someone's agency. Hitting them, getting them insanely drunk when the rapist is still sober, or giving them a rufie is removing someone's agency. Lying to them ... meh. It is fraud perhaps, but not coercion. People don't need to be credulous and gullible.

You would question my motives? I've never lied a woman in to bed (had I been less honest with women I might have had a more eventful college sex life). I do think lying to people to get them into bed is wrong in some moral sense I just don't think dishonesty is the same moral category as physical force, manipulation of minors or the use of drugs.


Welcome to patriarchy.

Is this just an issue of patriarchy? Many macho men may lie women into bed out of or justified by some preconceived notion of masculinity, but often this dishonesty just occurs because people like to have sex, and know full well that a potential partner might not want to sleep with them if they know how much of a "loser" they are irl


Why is it "wrong", in your opinion?

I would focus on the lies that actually impact another person's health or state of wellbeing, and not just make the blanket claim that any lie made between two lovers which may possibly be contributing to a consent which otherwise wouldn't be there makes a sexual act "rape". These lies would not make the case an act of rape, but might make it an act of sexual assault, by, for instance, endangering someone with an STD or unwanted pregnancy.

Heck, two people out on a date might be lying to each other in our modern day and age. Can two people actually rape each other? Would we send them both to jail? It seems better to consider them both dishonest people, not rapists. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying that these activities are morally acceptable, just that dishonesty seems to have a different relationship with consent that drugging and use of force have. Anyone who lies a person to bed should feel ashamed that they needed to lie.

[Vanguard1917]

You think violating consent = being "not nice"

No, i just disagree with your bizarre opinions, by which adulterous women, and pretty much the rest of the world (including yourself), are or will become rapists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Holllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyy shit. What the fuck?

If you lie to somebody in order to get consent, that would otherwise not be given, you do not have consent, ergo you are a rapist.

Lying to somebody to get them into bed is not just some "unfortunate reality", its rape, refusing to call it what it is, is enabling rape culture.

But what TAT seemed to be suggesting is that consent cannot be given if someone lies to someone in order to have sex with them. That is a non-sequitor.

If the logic followed, then a married man who sleeps with another woman whilst proclaiming to be single is a rapist.

The problem here is the loaded language and the grey areas, i'm fairly sure we can all agree that direct deception in order to 'trick' someone into sleeping with you can be defined as rape.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Though saying what I just said, the OP (which admittedly I hadn't read before making the above post), is pretty grim and fucked up.

[The Douche]

The victim cannot give consent if the offender has not presented them with reality. Why is that a difficult position to understand?

How can you consent if you don't know the truth?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The victim cannot give consent if the offender has not presented them with reality. Why is that a difficult position to understand?

How can you consent if you don't know the truth?

I don't think being overly gullible is the same as being rufied, forced, being a child manipulated by an adult or being manipulated by a sober person when drunk. All of these other things imply an unequal power relation, whereas a simple lie does not (for one thing its more than possible with modern sexual culture where image has more to do with sexual success than substance that both parties are being a little dishonest - for another thing, all these other things take away your ability to reason or imply an inability to do so in the first place, but being lied to does not.)

[Vanguard1917]

The victim cannot give consent if the offender has not presented them with reality. Why is that a difficult position to understand?

Because it makes absolutely zero sense.

You seem to believe that only your version of sexual morality is permissible. That's, of course, the hallmark of religious moralism. But everyday reality shows that the vast majority of men and women reject your sexual morality, just as they in practice reject the sexual rules of the church. Perhaps you should take account of that, before writing up your own intricate rules for people's sex lives.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The victim cannot give consent if the offender has not presented them with reality. Why is that a difficult position to understand?

How can you consent if you don't know the truth?

There is a grey area, of course. Saying 'I don't have any sexually transmitted diseases' when you know that you do, in order to sleep with someone, is consciously preventing them from making an informed decision on consent. Saying 'I am not married' when you are married (for example), is not really a consent-based issue, though, it's a moral one.

I appreciate what you're saying, but there also has to be grounds for common sense. Rape is sex without consent, it's not a catch-all for immorality in sexual relations, and it would be a dangerous route to go down if it were.

Rape laws should guard against the violation of a person's body, and of their ability to make a choice about who they want to - and conversely do not want to - be intimate with.

[Il Medico]

[Before Post Disclaimer: I didn't read the posts in the other thread and am only responding to posts in this one.]

The whole lying=rape argument is a bit troublesome if you cast too broad of a net, because a lot of scenarios are fairly obviously not rape or violation of consent, or a grey area, while some definitely are. Here are a few (if slightly far fetched) scenarios to highlight this point.

Scenario 1-
I find out a person I want to have sex with wants to have sex with someone else. I manage to make them believe I'm that person because: they aren't familiar with this person's features/I make myself look like the person, they're drunk/otherwise impaired, or there is a lack of visibility in a place like, say, a dark hotel room. So they don't know I'm not who they wanted to have sex with.

Scenario 2-
I pick up someone at a bar and convince them I'm an astronaut. I tell them I can take them into the shuttle or get Buzz Aldrin's autograph or something. We have sex on that basis. I bail afterwards because I'm not an astronaut.

Scenario 3-
I go into a bar looking for a hook up. I'm married and put my ring in my pocket. I find someone and we have hook up without them knowing I'm married.

Scenario 4-
I'm on a date with someone and they tell me Wordsworth is their favorite poet. Rather than go on a long rant about how much I hate Wordsworth and ruin my romantic chances with them, I lie and say I like Wordsworth too. We have sex later.

The first scenario, while sounding like it's from an 80's teenager sex comedy, is obviously rape and anything remotely similar is obviously rape. That sort of lie clearly violates consent, because you never actually got it.

The second scenario is straight from 'players' hand book and is rape too, in my opinion. They coerced consent by offering things to the person under false pretenses. Same sort of thing applies to bosses getting their underlings to have sex with them on the false promise of promotion. Consent here is entirely based on an exchange the person has no ability or inclination to fulfill.

The third scenario is a bit more of a of a grey area. While it's quite possible the person would not have given consent if they knew, there was no coercion or manipulation involved. They gave consent because they wanted too, not being privy to a piece of information that might have changed that decision doesn't make it rape. There's lots of other information that may or may not effect your decision to give consent (i.e criminal history, jealous ex, kids, etc) but lack of this information doesn't impair your ability to do so. Consent isn't something that requires background checks in my opinion, though some might disagree.

The fourth scenario is is my biggest concern with the statement lying=rape. This sort of lie is by far the most common type of lie in the pursuit of romantic relations and pretty clearly not rape in my opinion. Everyone puts up a false face when dating to seem more appealing and most won't sabotage their romantic options when a white lie could avoid it. These sorts of lies have no bearing on the ability to give consent whatsoever and happen in virtually all relationships. If one claims that this sort of lie makes any resulting sex rape, then they're claiming all sex is rape. Not only is this obviously nonsense, but it's pretty insulting to anyone who has actually been raped, sexually assaulted, or had their ability to consent violated.

[Luís Henrique]

If you lie to somebody in order to get consent, that would otherwise not be given, you do not have consent, ergo you are a rapist.

This is what is called trivialising rape. Ascribing such a word to things like that completely reduces rape to an issue of misunderstandings.

Rape is taking sex from another person, against their will, through violence. Any other definition trivialises rape.


Lying to somebody to get them into bed is not just some "unfortunate reality", its rape, refusing to call it what it is, is enabling rape culture.

See, let's suppose that a woman wants to marry a man. In order to achieve that, she lies to him that she has taken the pill, gets pregnant, and "coerces" the guy into marrying her, or at least into financially supporting her. According to your definition, that is rape. Or why not?

So, we have degraded the notion of rape, from a violent crime, to anything you may do to sway anyone into having sex that they would otherwise refused. This, of course, is what reinforces "rape culture": the notion that rape is a trivial issue, tantamount to bad sex or to foolish tricks to get laid.

And of course, when we get to such conundrum, we are ready to start police investigations on whether each woman who simply forgets her contraceptives is not perhaps a dangerous rapist. Perhaps we would even invent a concept for "negligent rape" to accomodate such definition?

... or, of course, as it seems much more natural, to simply restart considering rape as a minor crime, since a huge part of its instances are quite just that.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, that woman manipulated that man into having sex with her under flase pretenses.

I'm not holding myself up as a shining beacon of communist morality (I am certainly not such a thing, and I have tons of problematic behaviors), but what you're doing is very, very wrong.

So, when you say that you are not a shining beacon of communist morality, are you admitting to have "raped" someone, under your definition of rape? Have you never willingly presented yourself as something slightly different from what you actually are, in order to maximise the probability of getting under somebody else's sheets? And how many times have you been "raped", under your false definition of "rape", but failed to prosecute the dangerous criminals who deceived you into thinking they were more pretty, or intelligent, or agreeable to your political or philosophical positions, or even that they were simply more interested in your person than they actually were? Because each time someone has lied or misrepresented reality to you in order to get laid and you didn't go after them in a criminal sue, you have contributed to the "rape culture"...

Really, Benedict XVI had a lot to learn from you people...

Luís Henrique

[Quail]

This is what is called trivialising rape. Ascribing such a word to things like that completely reduces rape to an issue of misunderstandings.

Rape is taking sex from another person, against their will, through violence. Any other definition trivialises rape.

That's not always true though. It might not be necessary to use violence against someone to rape them. Some people freeze up, some people are too drunk to consent, etc. I think that deliberate deception, or "tricking" someone into bed can be a pretty serious violation and is really not okay. I also think that emotional manipulation to get someone to perform sexual acts is sexual abuse. For example if you tell someone they're worthless if they don't have sex with you, and then they have sex with you, you haven't got consent. You've coerced someone into sleeping with you, which is rape.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes I have violated the principles of consent. I have done things in the past which I now understand to be reprehensible.

Had you actually raped someone - physically forced someone into sexual acts, through the use or threat of violence, would you, understanding that what you did constitutes rape, throw yourself at the mercy of the justice system? Would you go to a police precinct and come clear, giving them the circumstances of your crime, and then serve a long jail sentence for it?

If so, why don't you follow the same path of action concerning your "rapes"?

Perhaps because aside from the hypocrisy, you can realise that rape is rape, and not whatever shady things you might have done in the past?

Or else, perhaps you are the actual "rape apologist" here, earnestly believing you raped people in the past, but not wanting to stand for your crimes and pay for them?


1) I don't believe that any help can be found by going to the state

Ah, so it boils down to "rape is a horrible crime, but it should go unpunished, because the bourgeois State, yadda-yadda"?


No, I don't believe rapists should be prosecuted by the state, I believe we should develop ways of dealing with these issues within our own communities.

Except we haven't, and, short of a revolution, won't. So the only alternative is impunity or punishment by the bourgeois State.


A woman who is in a committed monogamous relationship is being a real piece of shit by violating that trust and sleeping with another person. I hope you see the difference, and you weren't just trying to dishonestly label me as anti-woman, when you are the one defending rape culture... (*I'm also not a fucking leftist)

This is obviously anti-women. How are they "real pieces of shit" for violating State-mandated monogamy? It simply oozes with bourgeois moralism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

That's not always true though. It might not be necessary to use violence against someone to rape them. Some people freeze up, some people are too drunk to consent, etc.

Yup, violence or credible threat thereof. And evidently violence is proportional; someone who is physically or mentally impaired doesn't require too much use of force to be overwhelmed.


I think that deliberate deception, or "tricking" someone into bed can be a pretty serious violation and is really not okay. I also think that emotional manipulation to get someone to perform sexual acts is sexual abuse.

Oh, certainly, there are many things that are definitely not OK, a few of which probably even classify as felonies. But not everything that is not OK is a crime, and not every crime is a rape. I am not suggesting that adulterous women should be universally considered virtuous and unwilling victims of patriarchy, nor that every schoolboy who fakes a more interesting life than they actually have is not to be reprehended and corrected. But to consider adulterous women as morally and legally equivalent to rapists in the case they hide their condition as married women from their lovers is insanity.
- and, to be precise, of the patriarchal and sexist kind of insanity.


For example if you tell someone they're worthless if they don't have sex with you, and then they have sex with you, you haven't got consent. You've coerced someone into sleeping with you, which is rape.

If someone tells me that I am worthless if I don't have sex with them, I will tell that I would rather be worthless than have sex with them. If there are no other circumstances (such as this being said by a father to his daughter, by a teacher to his pupil, by someone who otherwise holds actual power over the victim), that make it different, the same applies to all people; I am not that special...

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

This is what is called trivialising rape. Ascribing such a word to things like that completely reduces rape to an issue of misunderstandings.

Indeed.


This is obviously anti-women. How are they "real pieces of shit" for violating State-mandated monogamy? It simply oozes with bourgeois moralism.

Yes. And funny how an ostensibly feminist argument can be used to justify a return to historically one of the major legislative means for oppressing women - adultery laws.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think you're living on planet earth. People - both men and women - bend the truth all the time when they're trying to find a sexual partner. There's even a name for it, i believe: 'dating'. The entire phenomenon is based on what we could call deception: 'present the best possible image of yourself', 'don't discuss your flaws', 'don't let on about your jealous sociopath of an ex-husband', etc, etc.

Be a better person then. If you have personality flaws then either be upfront about them or deal with it. But this isn't what I'm talking about. If every date you go on is for the purpose of having sex and you constantly obfuscate the truth about who you are and deceive another person then you are denying them their consent.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you disagree then disagree. You're the one who has to live with yourself.


Not a valid analogy at all. The thief didn't have my consent to take my possessions.And if you deceive someone into having sex with them you didn't get their consent to have sex with them.

[The Feral Underclass]

So a married woman who commits adultery with an unknowing man (who wouldn't have had sex with her is he knew she was married) is a rapist? Who among us has always given a warts-and-all account of ourselves to a person before we've had sex with them? I didn't realise revleft was filled with so many angels from Kingdom Come. Some of us are more judgemental than Catholic priests.

Two people don't get married just so they can have sex with each other. That would be a pretty extreme thing to do.

What we are talking about is taking sex from someone, i.e. entering into a situation for the sole purposes of you being able to penetrate them.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is what is called trivialising rape. Ascribing such a word to things like that completely reduces rape to an issue of misunderstandings.

Rape is taking sex from another person, against their will, through violence. Any other definition trivialises rape.

The point of contention here is what constitutes coercion. For you and others coercion is only coercion if it is physical. Others are contending that coercion doesn't have to be physical in order for it to be coercion. Force can be applied in other ways.

Therefore, it's not a question of us trivialising rape, it's a question of believing that other kinds of force are equally as serious. In other words, it's about you trivialising consent.


See, let's suppose that a woman wants to marry a man. In order to achieve that, she lies to him that she has taken the pill, gets pregnant, and "coerces" the guy into marrying her, or at least into financially supporting her. According to your definition, that is rape. Or why not?Because rape, which is what we are talking about, refers specifically to sexual intercourse, not to getting married or just lying to someone. The reason she wants him to marry her is for money, not for sexual intercourse -- getting married to someone just so you could fuck them is a pretty extreme thing to do.


But not everything that is not OK is a crimeWhy has the issue of justice been brought into this discussion?

[The Feral Underclass]

The problem here is the loaded language and the grey areas, i'm fairly sure we can all agree that direct deception in order to 'trick' someone into sleeping with you can be defined as rape.

The problem here is actually that people have a very narrow definition of what coercion and consent are.

Rape victims give their consent often. What if a child said it is okay for an adult to penetrate them? The person didn't lie, use physical force, they just asked and the kid said yes. Is that consent? What happens if a woman gave her consent to a man that didn't lie or use force but then passes out drunk. Is it consent if the man fucks her while is passed out?

[The Feral Underclass]

So should we do away with lying altogether?

But we're not talking about lying in general. We're talking about lying in relation to sexual intercourse specifically.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem here is actually that people have a very narrow definition of what coercion and consent are.

Some people do indeed. Equally, some others have so broad a definition as to be baseless in practice.

Rape victims give their consent often. What if a child said it is okay for an adult to penetrate them? The person didn't lie, use physical force, they just asked and the kid said yes. Is that consent? What happens if a woman gave her consent to a man that didn't lie or use force but then passes out drunk. Is it consent if the man fucks her while is passed out?

To deal with your two examples:

The first one, involving child-adult relations, is already dealt with by age of consent laws. It is already on statute that someone below a certain age cannot give consent to sexual activity.

The second one is a fair example. Consent needs to of course be given at the time of each initiation of sexual activity - if someone is passed out they cannot give consent and so having sex with that person is then an act of rape.

My point was more that you cannot say that ANY and ALL lies relating to sexual intercourse immediately raise the spectre of rape - as I said earlier, a man who lies about his marital status may be a deceitful asshole, but not a rapist if the woman who has sex with him gives his consent, even with his marital status withheld or lied about.

[Il Medico]

The problem here is actually that people have a very narrow definition of what coercion and consent are.
Indeed.


Rape victims give their consent often. Not really. Saying 'yes' doesn't necessarily mean you give consent. If your ability to give consent is impaired or otherwise violated, a 'yes' is not consent. Consent must always be informed, enthusiastic, and current. The person can not consent if they aren't aware of what is happening/ can't fully understand what is going on, they must want to have sex without any duress or trickery, and they must give their consent at the time of sex. If any of those don't hold true, it's rape, regardless of a 'yes'.



What if a child said it is okay for an adult to penetrate them? The person didn't lie, use physical force, they just asked and the kid said yes. Is that consent? No. A child can not fully understand what the adult is asking and thus can't make an informed decision to have sex.


What happens if a woman gave her consent to a man that didn't lie or use force but then passes out drunk. Is it consent if the man fucks her while is passed out?No. The person must be fully aware of what is going on and able to give current consent.

[The Feral Underclass]

The first one, involving child-adult relations, is already dealt with by age of consent laws. It is already on statute that someone below a certain age cannot give consent to sexual activity.

This has nothing to do with what is legal and illegal, what this is about is whether coercion is only coerion if it is physical force.


The second one is a fair example. Consent needs to of course be given at the time of each initiation of sexual activity - if someone is passed out they cannot give consent and so having sex with that person is then an act of rape.

So then you agree that coercion can be coercion without it being physically violent?


My point was more that you cannot say that ANY and ALL lies relating to sexual intercourse immediately raise the spectre of rape - as I said earlier, a man who lies about his marital status may be a deceitful asshole, but not a rapist if the woman who has sex with him gives his consent, even with his marital status withheld or lied about.

Rape is the act of taking sex from someone who has not given their consent by coercion. That is what rape is. As you have already conceded, coercion does not necessarily have to be physically violent.

Why then is it not possible to use that word for people who use non-physical force? Or do you not agree that deceiving someone out of their ability to consent is force?

[The Feral Underclass]

Indeed.
Not really. Saying 'yes' doesn't necessarily mean you give consent. If your ability to give consent is impaired or otherwise violated, a 'yes' is not consent. Consent must always be informed, enthusiastic, and current. The person can not consent if they aren't aware of what is happening/ can't fully understand what is going on, they must want to have sex without any duress or trickery, and they must give their consent at the time of sex. If any of those don't hold true, it's rape, regardless of a 'yes'.

That is precisely the argument that I have made through out this thread.


No. A child can not fully understand what the adult is asking and thus can't make an informed decision to have sex.
No. The person must be fully aware of what is going on and able to give current consent.

You have misunderstood the nature of my post. I was challenging The Boss to understand these very points that you have articulated.

The point I was illustrating to The Boss was that coercion does not have to be physical.

[Sentinel]

This is a political discussion split from the Committed Users forum into Discrimination, in order to get more input. References to 'the OP' are therefore not accurate, as the current OP is not the original one.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rape is taking sex from another person, against their will, through violence. Any other definition trivialises rape.

Yes, and everyone in this thread who doesn't understand that "violence" isn't always physical and that "against their will" involves manipulation of reality is trivializing rape - including yourself, despite your efforts.

Violence can be psychological, emotional, and mental. This isn't hard to understand. If I stand above you and threaten you with physical violence unless you have sex with me I haven't enacted any physical violence but the whole situation is dependent upon the psychological violence I am inflicting upon you.

An individual's "will" is entirely dependent upon their full cogniscant understanding of the options in front of them. One cannot "will" a thing to happen when one does not understand what that thing is or believes it to be something else. I.e. I can "will" the sun to rise but I did no such thing. Likewise I can "will" a glass to fall to the floor when I drop it but I did no such thing.

So, in short, lying to someone in order to sleep with them is a simple and undeniable form of violent coercion which involves taking sex from another against their will. In other words, it's rape.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Question. What if you lie to someone, but having sex with that person wasn't the intention behind the lie? Like what if you're lying to someone else, and a girl overhears it and it factors into her decision to have sex with you, but it wasn't directed at her so you didn't know it would/did?

[Geiseric]

I think that this is a very dodgy line to take. Later in the same post you define rape:



I totally agree with this. The idea that if somebody lies to somebody then they are not able to given consent is something beyond this. People lie to each other. It is not something to be proud of, but it happens. Having told somebody a lie before going to bed with somebody does not make somebody a rapist.

Devrim

Lying to a minor does constitute rape, dick. Hey there's some candy In my car, I guess since you believe me it's not rape. Seriously fuck off. Do you even know what we were talking about? NAMBLA, a child pornography ring.

[Geiseric]

I don't think being overly gullible is the same as being rufied, forced, being a child manipulated by an adult or being manipulated by a sober person when drunk. All of these other things imply an unequal power relation, whereas a simple lie does not (for one thing its more than possible with modern sexual culture where image has more to do with sexual success than substance that both parties are being a little dishonest - for another thing, all these other things take away your ability to reason or imply an inability to do so in the first place, but being lied to does not.)

Asshole. Minors can't tell the difference when they're raped, whether there gullible or not. Seriously what are you people doing here? It's either Stalinoids, rape apologists, or both on the majority of the so called left apparently! Want some ice cream? Just come into my basement, since you believe me whatever I do is justified. I hope your not allergic to latex, Mr. Gullible!

[Decolonize The Left]

Question. What if you lie to someone, but having sex with that person wasn't the intention behind the lie? Like what if you're lying to someone else, and a girl overhears it and it factors into her decision to have sex with you, but it wasn't directed at her so you didn't know it would/did?

It's common-sense really. No, in that situation you have no intention one way or the other of coercing that person to have sex with you, so it's not rape. Of course, if she says she wants to sleep with you because of what she overheard earlier and you're all "yeah that's awesome" (knowing that you were lying then and are lying now) then this would constitute rape.

[Sentinel]

Time for a reminder of civil and respectful discussion. The topic may be heated but flaming isn't permitted here. This is an allround verbal warning;further comments in this thread by anyone in the line of 'eat shit', 'dick' and other flames will lead straight to infractions.

[MarxArchist]

If you use deceit/force/trickery etc. to get someone to have sex with you, it's rape. I don't understand the confusion here.

If a woman won't sleep with you, you don't go about trying to trick her to do it.

This applies to men and women both.

Person A "I have 20 million dollars".

Person B thinks... "maybe I'll have sex with this person so as to manipulate their emotions when all I really want is a future where I don't have to be a perpetual wage slave in order to survive, I'm in it for the money".


They have sex, start a friendship/relationship. Three weeks later person A tells person B they have no money. Person B goes to the police and files rape charges. If I were on the jury I'd vote not guilty.

[MarxArchist]

If you use deceit/force/trickery etc. to get someone to have sex with you, it's rape. I don't understand the confusion here.

If a woman won't sleep with you, you don't go about trying to trick her to do it.

If I don't want to have sex with someone they can't trick me into doing it because I'm not a stupid helpless child.

[Beeth]

Just a question, out of curiosity.

John wants to get Jane into bed, so he lies to her about many things. But then Jane also wants John in bed, so she also tells lies. In such a scenario, both of them are rapists and rape victims at the same time?

Just wondering...

[MarxArchist]

Why is it "wrong", in your opinion?



Yes I have violated the principles of consent. I have done things in the past which I now understand to be reprehensible.





You're a rapist then. You need to contact the women you raped and make amends. Maybe some restorative justice/face to face counseling sessions. I would honestly look into getting in front of a judge in order to admit to your crimes so that you can be placed in prison for, depending on how many women you raped, a long time. Or maybe the judge will just give you a week's probation because you are now reformed and well versed in feminist theories surrounding patriarchy?


At the least you should register as a sex offender online and post your address/picture so women know that you're a rapist/dangerous. Inform your employers as well.

[MarxArchist]

Just a question, out of curiosity.

John wants to get Jane into bed, so he lies to her about many things. But then Jane also wants John in bed, so she also tells lies. In such a scenario, both of them are rapists and rape victims at the same time?

Just wondering...

Women never lie or manipulate so the people who make these universal claims didn't have to think about such scenarios.

[MarxArchist]

Welcome to patriarchy.





A woman lies on a dating website, blame patriarchy.

[MarxArchist]

Because it's usually not nice to lie. But being 'not nice' and being a rapist are not necessarily the same thing.



But here's the crux of the problem - according to your definition, women are probably just as guilty of rape as men, since there is no reason to believe that women tell lies less than men. That would suggest that, if we use your definition, rape has nothing to do with 'patriarchy'/male social dominance. It is something that women do also.



Thank you, Mr Jeremy Kyle.

She's also raping her husband at home who wouldn't stay with her if he knew she was 'cheating'. So now adultery must be reclassified as rape. Women who cheat on their husbands should be placed in prison for rape. Mens rights activists would love that.

[Skyhilist]

Imagine a guy dating a girl. She asks if he likes her dress. He's indifferent, but wanting her to like him says "I love it."

Later on they have sex and both enjoy it.

That's somehow rape?

[MarxArchist]

If I met a woman, was talking to her in a bar or at a party or in a exercise class and I only slept with her because of one specific thing she told me, like, lets say, she was related to the Queen of England and I later found out she wasn't really related to the queen of England and I was so crushed that I felt raped I think it would be time to re-evaluate my priorities in life.

[MarxArchist]

Imagine a guy dating a girl. She asks if he likes her dress. He's indifferent, but wanting her to like him says "I love it."

Later on they have sex and both enjoy it.

That's somehow rape?
Of course it is. If you don't like the dress you must tell her because perhaps the difference in fashion taste would be a deal breaker for her. Omission may as well be thrown into it. If you don't tell a partner EVERYTHING about yourself, the good, bad and ugly, before you sleep with them it is rape.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Rape in a literal sense? No, that is logically absurd. Rape in the sense that it would fit under rape culture? I suppose, it depends of course. Manipulation with alcohol and other recreational drugs is clearly within that category, however it gets murky when we speak of emotional manipulation.

[MarxArchist]

I've been raped multiple times by partners (women) who manipulated me into thinking we were in a monogamous relationship. This has happened 3 times (that I know of). May they rot in prison.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Asshole. Minors can't tell the difference when they're raped, whether there gullible or not. Seriously what are you people doing here? It's either Stalinoids, rape apologists, or both on the majority of the so called left apparently! Want some ice cream? Just come into my basement, since you believe me whatever I do is justified. I hope your not allergic to latex, Mr. Gullible!

Bro, I'm not talking about minors, I've made it clear in this thread that I think that manipulating minors for sex is rape. Where did I EVER say that I was talking about lying to a minor for sexual gain??? You're letting your emotions cloud your judgement, causing you to see straw men where it's not. What I'M talking about is some 22 year old telling a fellow 22 year old that they are an "astronaut" to get laid. As far as I am concerned, lying to a minor to have sex with them IS rape. Lying to a peer with a fully functioning brain to have sex with them is what I'm talking about.

Or, you can continue to have a debate with SOMEBODY ELSE WHO IS NOT ME while pretending that I am the person you are thinking of.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The problem with this definition of rape being suggested is this - it totally waters down people's own agency and rational role in consenting or not consenting, and the significant difference between being physically, emotionally or mentally UNABLE to consent to an act, and consenting to an act on FALSE PREMISES which were accepted with too little skepticism.

As much as anything else, human beings lie to one another as a simple, everyday course of social affairs, and if they are not lying, they are certainly omitting important facts. Human beings have all done or thought things at some point leading up to a sexual encounter which, if they were shared or expressed in truth, would have prevented that sexual encounter from happening. In fact, this is a basic aspect of human interaction. When I see a girl who put on way too much makeup, I'm not going to go up and tell her I think she's plastered herself like a shitty lawn gnome. That would be impolite and indecent. Yet it may well be my opinion. If I later tell her I think she looks great, haven't I lied? Wouldn't that lie make the possibility of sex more likely? If sex occurs, is that really rape? Do all of these nasty prior thoughts or actions or states of being necessarily need to get put into the open before sex occurs to ensure that rape is not going on?


Certain kinds of lies before sex are a clear case of misconduct. For instance, if Bill tells Barbara he's not HIV positive and is, he has clearly assaulted her and endangered her life with a deadly disease. Has he raped her? That is an immaterial question based on semantics. What he has done is given her HIV because of his blatant disregard for her health status. As such, he should be treated as a sexual criminal as much as any rapist, because regardless of whether we use a term like "rape", he has done something heinous. However, are all lies of this nature? What of the vast majority of irrelevant, pointless, throwaway lies, ranging from "you look great in that [insert gender neutral piece of clothing]" to "no i don't think you're fat" to "yeah, I'm working for NASA" to "No I don't have any kids" have no actual impact on someone's life, hiding something like HIV is bad for real, material reasons. For those other lies, I think people should focus more on being less credulous and more critical of the kinds of things people say to each other in everyday chatter or flirtation. Being way too gullible for one's own good is simply not in the same category as being rufied/drugged/manipulated when drunk, being a minor or being physically forced.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It seems to me that many responses on this thread use the term "rape" very, very loosely, in order to condemn behaviour they find morally unacceptable, and that these responses obscure the relation between rape and patriarchy as systematic violence against women by men. Of course, rape is not always directly violent, but it is, I think, always associated with male violence. Even the case Quail mentions, of a man telling a woman she is worthless if she does not have sex with him, is associated with the constant violent demeaning of women by men, and the manner in which women who do not conform to male expectations are treated.

But if a woman tells a man that he is worthless if he doesn't sleep with her? That is awful, of course, but it is not rape.

I think focusing on systematic violence is a good, materialist approach, and it allows us to bypass all the scholastic hairsplitting about agency and so on, and so on.

[MarxArchist]

It seems to me that many responses on this thread use the term "rape" very, very loosely, in order to condemn behaviour they find morally unacceptable, and that these responses obscure the relation between rape and patriarchy as systematic violence against women by men. Of course, rape is not always directly violent, but it is, I think, always associated with male violence. Even the case Quail mentions, of a man telling a woman she is worthless if she does not have sex with him, is associated with the constant violent demeaning of women by men, and the manner in which women who do not conform to male expectations are treated.

But if a woman tells a man that he is worthless if he doesn't sleep with her? That is awful, of course, but it is not rape.

I think focusing on systematic violence is a good, materialist approach, and it allows us to bypass all the scholastic hairsplitting about agency and so on, and so on.

Words have meaning. A poster in this thread admitted to (by his own definition) raping women. If he had admitted to raping women at knife point five or ten years ago would not all of the people in this thread who are supporting this absurd definition of rape be up in arms? Probably even be calling the police. Where is the outrage? Because he 'now see's the folly of his ways' it's acceptable? What I'm exposing here is the people who advocate this definition of rape don't even fully embrace it.

[Devrim]

Lying to a minor does constitute rape, dick. Hey there's some candy In my car, I guess since you believe me it's not rape. Seriously fuck off. Do you even know what we were talking about? NAMBLA, a child pornography ring.

No, that is not what we are talking about at all. What we are talking about is whether lying to people removes their ability to give consent. People under a certain age are not legally considered capable of giving consent. In the country you live in, any sex with a minor whether they consent or not is classified as statutory rape, so it is irrelevant whether somebody tells them lies. It is still rape.

I have in no way made any arguments about changing the age of consent, or pro NAMBLA. I think that the only comment I have ever made on this issue was recently on a thread where I said if my 15 year old child were having a relationship with an 18 year old I would be concerned.

What this thread is about though is people trying to redefine the meaning of rape, and I think that there argument has been shown to be totally absurd.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It seems to me that many responses on this thread use the term "rape" very, very loosely, in order to condemn behaviour they find morally unacceptable, and that these responses obscure the relation between rape and patriarchy as systematic violence against women by men. Of course, rape is not always directly violent, but it is, I think, always associated with male violence. Even the case Quail mentions, of a man telling a woman she is worthless if she does not have sex with him, is associated with the constant violent demeaning of women by men, and the manner in which women who do not conform to male expectations are treated.

But if a woman tells a man that he is worthless if he doesn't sleep with her? That is awful, of course, but it is not rape.


Rape is not only an issue of male violence to women and patriarchy. Thinking as much basically ignores the very real problems of women-on-women and men-on-men sexual violence, as well as certain situations where a particular woman is in a position of structural power over a man. Just because patriarchy sucks and plays a huge role in causing or justifying rape, it doesn't mean we need to reduce all rape and sexual violence to patriarchy in a simplistic manner.

Also, demeaning a person is not the same as telling a lie. Demeaning a person is done to reduce their willpower, whereas a lie is only as powerful as the credulity of the person lied to.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Rape is not only an issue of male violence to women and patriarchy. Thinking as much basically ignores the very real problems of women-on-women and men-on-men sexual violence, as well as certain situations where a particular woman is in a position of structural power over a man. Just because patriarchy sucks and plays a huge role in causing or justifying rape, it doesn't mean we need to reduce all rape and sexual violence to patriarchy in a simplistic manner.

In my experience, a lot of same-sex, or at least male-male sexual violence includes acting out very rigid gender roles, with the aggressive party being seen as more masculine and therefore more dominant. Therefore it still ties in to patriarchy; as for women with structural power over men, they do not have such power as women, whereas men have power over women as men, so I think it's quite a different situation.


Also, demeaning a person is not the same as telling a lie. Demeaning a person is done to reduce their willpower, whereas a lie is only as powerful as the credulity of the person lied to.

I know; I was addressing Quail's example. I don't think that lying in a relationship is necessarily rape.

[#FF0000]

I understand where the "lying to get sex = rape" line is coming from, but where I run into a problem here is the fact that people always try to present themselves a certain way towards people they're interested in, you know? I think we need to make it clear (and maybe some examples would help?), what kind of lie would one tell to make one culpable of rape?

[The Feral Underclass]

What this thread is about though is people trying to redefine the meaning of rape, and I think that there argument has been shown to be totally absurd.

Except of course the argument itself hasn't actually been addressed.

Rape is defined as taking sex from another person without their consent by force. Are you saying that force is only ever physical? If it is then it is you who is trying to define rape.

[The Feral Underclass]

Human beings have all done or thought things at some point leading up to a sexual encounter which, if they were shared or expressed in truth, would have prevented that sexual encounter from happening.

I have never, ever done that.

But now I realise that actually those who are defending this line are actually just defending their own actions. What you people are doing is trying to justify your own behaviour.

Well, perhaps instead of trying to do that, you could reflect on your actions a bit more.

[The Feral Underclass]

It seems to me that many responses on this thread use the term "rape" very, very loosely, in order to condemn behaviour they find morally unacceptable

Then you have not read this thread correctly.

The issue, which I'll repeat for your benefit, is about what constitutes force. The definition of rape is quite clear and beyond the cultural projections of what rape is supposed to "look like" the argument comes down to whether force can be applied non-physically.

People need to get out of this infantile view that rape is only rape if it looks like something from the movies. Force isn't just applied physically, it is applied with non-physical force also.

The idea that we should take those instances of force less seriously trivialises consent and provides justification for it to occur. It is, in essence, rape apology.

[Devrim]

Except of course the argument itself hasn't actually been addressed.

Rape is defined as taking sex from another person without their consent by force. Are you saying that force is only ever physical? If it is then it is you who is trying to define rape.

I think it has been addressed, and shown to be absurd. The fact that you don't recognize that is neither here nor there.

What I am saying is that lying to people does not make their consent invalid, and I think most people on this thread seem to agree.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it has been addressed, and shown to be absurd. The fact that you don't recognize that is neither here nor there.

Please demonstrate where in this thread someone has emphatically refuted the idea that force can be non-physical.


What I am saying is that lying to people does not make their consent invalid, and I think most people on this thread seem to agree.

Then you and the others are rape apologists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Consent is defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent?s=t) as, "to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield; permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence." It also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent), "refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration"

If you are being asked to make a decision to offer your consent and someone provides you with false information, deceives you or manipulates you, how is it then possible to make a thoughtful consideration? How is it possible to agree or approve something for which you are not being given the opportunity to agree or approve with? How can you comply or yield to a situation that is being obfuscated? Any consent that you are offering is under duress, having had your agency removed and is therefore, by any definition, invalid, since you're giving your consent to a situation that does not exist!

Any one who fails to understand that very basic principle is either an idiot or has more sinister motives. There is no other explanation for it.

[MarxArchist]

Please demonstrate where in this thread someone has emphatically refuted the idea that force can be non-physical.



Then you and the others are rape apologists.

How absurd. Was it you who posted this on this site


“13 is the age of consent in various countries including South Korea and Mexico. Some could argue that America’s (and other peoples) social conservatism is the problem.”Talk about actual rape apologist.




“How many of us have had sexual fantasies about children or “youths”? Perhaps it was a flash in the recesses of masturbation? Perhaps you’ve even entertained elaborate narratives or role played with partners? How many of us are truly prepared to admit that, at some point, as transient or as complex as it may have been, we have considered what it was like to have sex with a child?
That “right” to have sex with children was taken away with the creation of the age of consent, which came into existence as a reaction to child prostitution during in the thirteenth century. It was allegedly quite popular and to tackle this problem they had the bright idea of setting the age that children could legally have sex (with anyone) at twelve. This was raised to thirteen six hundred years later in the Victorian era, as is the case in some Latin American countries and South Korea now, incidentally. The age of consent in the UK as it stands is sixteen, but in other European countries the age is mostly fourteen. These ages are so inconsistent around the word, both historically and in a contemporary sense that they appear totally arbitrary”

Again, you?

[The Feral Underclass]

How absurd. Was it you who posted this on this site.

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure how that renders the argument that force is also non-physical invalid.

You're trying to demonstrate tu quoque that my argument is invalid and I'm afraid that doesn't work.


Talk about actual rape apologist

Where do you imagine the rape apology exists in that quote?

The age of consent in South Korea is 13 (or at least it was at the time of posting that two years ago) and an argument could be made that moral conservatism is a problem in relation to age of consent laws.

Feel free to disagree with any of that, but I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong. In fact, the person this thread was initially about and whom you're all indirectly defending, would probably agree with me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Again, you?

Yes, I wrote that. And?

I notice that you haven't quoted the entire article.

[MarxArchist]

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure how that renders the argument that force is also non-physical invalid.

You're trying to demonstrate tu quoque that my argument is invalid and I'm afraid that doesn't work.



Where do you imagine the rape apology exists in that quote?

The age of consent in South Korea is 13 (or at least it was at the time of posting that two years ago) and an argument could be made that moral conservatism is a problem in relation to age of consent laws.

Feel free to disagree with any of that, but I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong. In fact the person this thread was initially about would probably agree with me.

I'm insulting you for calling me and others rape apologists when clearly you are one. Thats all. Nothing I've typed in this thread or onto this site is rape apology. You on the other hand....

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm insulting you for calling me and others rape apologists when clearly you are one.

Yet I'm still unclear where it is I've made apologies for rape. You provided two quotes from me, but neither of them demonstrate what you think they demonstrate.

Feel free to try again.

-- Also, how is it that you're so aware of these quotes from over two years ago considering you've only been a member here since February 2013?


Thats all. Nothing I've typed in this thread or onto this site is rape apology. You on the other hand....

If you think that consent is valid even if it is given through deception and manipulation then you are a rape apologist.

[MarxArchist]

Yet I'm still unclear where it is I've made apologies for rape. You provided two quotes from me, but neither of them demonstrate what you think they demonstrate.

That you're a pedophile rape apologist?





-- Also, how is it that you're so aware of these quotes from over two years ago considering you've only been a member here since February 2013?


I got an e-mail from another poster on this site concerning your shifty positions.

[MarxArchist]

If you think that consent is valid even if it is given through deception and manipulation then you are a rape apologist.

That sounds very moral and just but the problem I have is in the generality of it. It's a universal claim. Black and white with no shades of grey. Simple thought experiments expose the fault logic.

[The Feral Underclass]

That you're a pedophile rape apologist?

Yes, I understand the implication of what you're trying to do. What I'm telling you is that the quotes you provided in support of this accusation don't in fact do that.

Try and imagine for a second that those quotes never did or had any intention of apologising for the rape of children. If that were the case then obviously I would not want that. If you can demonstrate to me using reasonable argument that this is what those quotes do, then I will publicly apologise right now for making apologies for paedophilic rape.


I got an e-mail from another poster on this site concerning your shifty positions.

Really? Which member? And why would they email you?

Come on. Clearly you're a sockpuppet for someone.

[The Feral Underclass]

That sounds very moral

It may sound it to you, but it's actually not based on morality, it's based on how social dynamics work.


but the problem I have is in the generality of it. It's a universal claim. Black and white with no shades of grey.

Of course there are grey areas when understanding the seriousness of rape. That doesn't alter the fact that force can be non-physical. Either force is physical exclusively or it is both physical and non-physical. It's a binary position. Force can't be both physical and slightly non-physical, can it?

[The Feral Underclass]

This is a severe case in point, but what it highlights is the very serious issue of what is being discussed here.

Consent as a general concept could be given, i.e. a woman can say yes to doing something, but can it really be consent if she is being lied to? I would hope that most people in this thread would agree that these cops used non-physical force to get the consent from these women by deceiving and manipulating them and that, on reflection, it could not really be consent at all.

Undercover policemen, undercover lovers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/22/undercover-police-lovers)

Why then can the definition of rape not be applied to similar situations that refer specifically to getting sexual intercourse from someone?

[Luís Henrique]

Lying to a minor does constitute rape, dick.

Having sex with a minor constitutes rape. Lying or otherwise is immaterial in such a case.


Hey there's some candy In my car, I guess since you believe me it's not rape. Seriously fuck off. Do you even know what we were talking about? NAMBLA, a child pornography ring.

And again, it could be very true, and the guy actually have candies and give them to the child. It wouldn't turn it into consensual sex. See how the lie is not the problem?

And we aren't talking about NAMBLA. We are talking about what constitutes rape. Sex with minors is by definition rape, even if consensual, even if the minor in question actually begs for sex. Sex with an adult is rape if it violates consent through violence or threat thereof. Some people want to water down the definition of rape to involve other instances of sexual misconduct. This is what we are discussing, not NAMBLA.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Sex with an adult is rape if it violates consent through violence or threat thereof.

Do you accept that violence can be non-physical, yes or no?

[Quail]

There are many situations where deception means that someone doesn't have enough information to give informed consent, as people above have explained. It seems like some people are being deliberately dense. Lying about how much you like your date's clothing is absolutely not the same as, for example, lying about your HIV/sexual health status before you have sex, and you can't use the former to "prove" that the latter is not a serious violation. Whether or not you want to call it rape, the fact is that consent given under false pretences is not meaningful consent. In which case, someone has had sex without consent from their partner - what is that, if not rape?

Coercion can take many forms, not just physical violence. Lying and emotional manipulation are coercive too, and whether or not you want to call it rape, using these tools of coercion to get someone to have sex with you is undeniably sexual abuse.

[Luís Henrique]

Asshole. Minors can't tell the difference when they're raped, whether there gullible or not. Seriously what are you people doing here? It's either Stalinoids, rape apologists, or both on the majority of the so called left apparently! Want some ice cream? Just come into my basement, since you believe me whatever I do is justified. I hope your not allergic to latex, Mr. Gullible!

Well, this is a new one. "Minors can't tell the difference when they are being raped". I am pretty sure they are perfectly able to recognise threats of death or beatings, not to talk about actual phisical violence. What the law says is very different: that it doesn't matter whether a minor gives consent to sex with an adult, the adult is a criminal, a rapist, even where there is consent.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

A woman lies on a dating website, blame patriarchy.

Quite probably. But "patriarchy" can't sit trial or go to jail, so the issue is whether such woman is an accomplicit of patriarchy...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Of course it is. If you don't like the dress you must tell her because perhaps the difference in fashion taste would be a deal breaker for her. Omission may as well be thrown into it. If you don't tell a partner EVERYTHING about yourself, the good, bad and ugly, before you sleep with them it is rape.

I wonder whether if I forget to mention that I prefer Brahms to Shostakovich it qualifies as "rape by omission".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think that the only comment I have ever made on this issue was recently on a thread where I said if my 15 year old child were having a relationship with an 18 year old I would be concerned.

A thread in which, if I correctly remember, absolutely no one took to defending the poor child that was being raped without realising it, and, quite on the contrary, all of us (me included, I think) rushed to the defence of that heinous rapist.

Oh the convolutions of political correctness.

Luís Henrique

[Rurkel]

Posted by Quail
Lying about how much you like your date's clothing is absolutely not the same as, for example, lying about your HIV/sexual health status before you have sex, and you can't use the former to "prove" that the latter is not a serious violation. Well, so far, no people in this thread have stated that lying about HIV is not a serious violation. I was under impression that it isn't even up for discussion?



Posted by Luís Henrique
I am pretty sure they are perfectly able to recognise threats of death or beatings, not to talk about actual phisical violence. What the law says is very different: that it doesn't matter whether a minor gives consent to sex with an adult, the adult is a criminal, a rapist, even where there is consent.That means that in some cases, where an adult has sex with a minor without treats of violence or lack thereof, the minor indeed "doesn't understand that s/he is being raped", right?

[The Feral Underclass]

That means that in some cases, where an adult has sex with a minor without treats of violence or lack thereof, the minor indeed "doesn't understand that s/he is being raped", right?

Also, very young children don't even understand what is going on in the room, or even conceptualise they are in a room, let alone what is happening to them. There is conceivably a situation in which an adult could obfuscate what they are doing by distracting a very young child in order to abuse them.

One of the problems in this thread, and there are many, is that people have very limited understandings of these issues.

[Luís Henrique]

Do you accept that violence can be non-physical, yes or no?

What would be an instance of non-physical violence?

I want to understand what I am denying or admitting to.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

What would be an instance of non-physical violence?

Using manipulation or deception to get someone to have sex with you.

[Luís Henrique]

That means that in some cases, where an adult has sex with a minor without treats of violence or lack thereof, the minor indeed "doesn't understand that s/he is being raped", right?

That's a curious argument.

If I am 13 years and 11 months old, and I have consensual sex with an adult, I don't understand that I am being raped, but if I have consensual sex with an adult two months later, I have nothing to understand anymore (supposing that the consent age is, as in Brazil, 14 y/o)? How that?

It is a legal fiction. We suppose that minors don't have the ability to give informed consent, because doing otherwise would put too many children in danger of being abused. We suppose that people above some given age are able to give informed consent, because doing otherwise would unduly restrict the sexual liberty of people who are entitled to it. I am sure many people under the legal age are able to give informed consent, ant that many people above it are unable to do it. So an age of consent will always fail to extend protection to some people who need it, or restrict the freedom of people who don't, and, if it is a reasonable age of consent, quite certainly both. That is bad, but not as bad, I think, as having the State conducting some kind of psychological test in order to determine if each individual is emotionally an adult or not.

But, more directly, I would say that certain given minors can perfectly understand that what she or he is doing with an adult could lead that adult to jail, and still do it, and enjoy it. I bet it is even possible that they would lie to the adult about their age, in order to have it (in which case, I suppose, the minor in question becomes a rapist according to some here).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Using manipulation or deception to get someone to have sex with you.

What is manipulation? What is deception? Give me concrete examples.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

To be honest, I don't even think the term 'violence' is a particularly accurate one because it is loaded with cultural meaning -- violence as a word that implies physical force, where in actual fact what I am talking about is force generally, rather than specific to physicalness.

Also, I'm not sure that "through violence" is actually the definition of rape. Most definitions I am reading use the word "force."

"2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t

"1 the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rape

"1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/raped

"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape


So a better question is: Can force be non-physical?

[The Feral Underclass]

What is manipulation? What is deception? Give me concrete examples.

Luís Henrique

I am talking about any situation in which a person knowingly or with pre-meditation uses manipulation and deception against a person specifically to impede or remove their ability to give actual consent, in order that they can have sexual intercourse with them.

See my above post also.

Notwithstanding the juvenile cultural representations of violence and rape, if we agree that knowing or pre-meditated manipulation and deception constitutes force, then according to most definitions that I have read, manipulation and deception constitutes rape.

And that is a necessary distinction if we are to combat sexual abuse and violence, undermine rape culture and apology that lead to justifications for sexual abuse and violence.

[Luís Henrique]

I am talking about any situation in which a person knowingly or with pre-meditation uses manipulation and deception against a person specifically to impede or remove their ability to give actual consent, in order that they can have sexual intercourse with them.

See my above post also.

Notwithstanding the juvenile cultural representations of violence and rape, if we agree that knowing or pre-meditated manipulation and deception constitutes force, then according to most definitions that I have read, manipulation and deception constitutes rape.

And that is a necessary distinction if we are to combat sexual abuse and violence, undermine rape culture and apology that lead to justifications for sexual abuse and violence.

You still haven't explained what "manipulation" and "deception" are.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

So a better question is: Can force be non-physical?

In which case, my question remains: what would a non-physical force be?

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

You still haven't explained what "manipulation" and "deception" are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive

[The Feral Underclass]

There are other examples, but here is a good list of things.

Deception:

Lies: making up information or giving information that is the opposite or very different from the truth.

Equivocations: making an indirect, ambiguous, or contradictory statement.

Concealments: omitting information that is important or relevant to the given context, or engaging in behavior that helps hide relevant information.

Exaggerations: overstatement or stretching the truth to a degree.

Understatements: minimization or downplaying aspects of the truth

Manipulation (this is a fairly good list):

Lying: It is hard to tell if somebody is lying at the time they do it, although often the truth may be apparent later when it is too late. One way to minimize the chances of being lied to is to understand that some personality types (particularly psychopaths) are experts at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently, and often in subtle ways.

Lying by omission: This is a very subtle form of lying by withholding a significant amount of the truth. This technique is also used in propaganda.
Denial: Manipulator refuses to admit that he or she has done something wrong.

Rationalization: An excuse made by the manipulator for inappropriate behavior. Rationalization is closely related to spin.

Minimization: This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that his or her behavior is not as harmful or irresponsible as someone else was suggesting, for example saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke.

Selective inattention or selective attention: Manipulator refuses to pay attention to anything that may distract from his or her agenda, saying things like "I don't want to hear it".

Diversion: Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic.

Evasion: Similar to diversion but giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses, weasel words.

Covert intimidation: Manipulator throwing the victim onto the defensive by using veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.

Guilt trip: A special kind of intimidation tactic. A manipulator suggests to the conscientious victim that he or she does not care enough, is too selfish or has it easy. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position.

Shaming: Manipulator uses sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.

Playing the victim role: Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else's behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation.

Vilifying the victim: More than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the manipulator.

Playing the servant role: Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying he is acting in a certain way for "obedience" and "service" to God or a similar authority figure.

Projecting the blame (blaming others): Manipulator scapegoats in often subtle, hard-to-detect ways.

Feigning innocence: Manipulator tries to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or that they did not do something that they were accused of. Manipulator may put on a look of surprise or indignation. This tactic makes the victim question his or her own judgment and possibly his own sanity.

Feigning confusion: Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending he or she does not know what the victim is talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to his attention.

Brandishing anger: Manipulator uses anger to brandish sufficient emotional intensity and rage to shock the victim into submission. The manipulator is not actually angry, he or she just puts on an act. He just wants what he wants and gets "angry" when denied.

[The Feral Underclass]

Incidentally, I just discovered that prisoners in America cannot legally give their consent to sex.

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought I already explained all this...

Here's an example of non-physical force and/or violence:
"If you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill your mother."

In this example I have no used any physical violence or force against you, but through threatening said actions I have used non-physical force to make you do what I want.

This isn't that hard to understand people.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Then you have not read this thread correctly.

The issue, which I'll repeat for your benefit, is about what constitutes force. The definition of rape is quite clear and beyond the cultural projections of what rape is supposed to "look like" the argument comes down to whether force can be applied non-physically.

People need to get out of this infantile view that rape is only rape if it looks like something from the movies. Force isn't just applied physically, it is applied with non-physical force also.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your fears onto other people. I am well aware of the fact that rape does not always look "like something from the movies", and that many rapists are convinced that they did nothing wrong. That said, this does not mean that the notion of a "non-physical force" makes any sense. Rape is not always about force - sometimes the threat of force is all that needs to be used, and this, I think, covers serious cases of emotional and social manipulation as well. But this notion of lying as a "non-physical force" conflates force, threats of force, and lying that does not include a threat of force. That is rather like the insistence of some libertarians that contractual fraud is "initiation of force".


The idea that we should take those instances of force less seriously trivialises consent and provides justification for it to occur. It is, in essence, rape apology.

I was wondering when you would start screaming about "rape apology". Perhaps you should wonder which of us is trivialising rape - I, who try to point out how rape is connected to the systematic violence against women by men, or you, who apparently think that a married woman sleeping with a man without telling him about her marital status is a rapist.


Talk about actual rape apologist.

To be fair, I don't think that paragraph constitutes "rape apologia". It might be shoddy analysis - and it is definitely stronger than the positions of most users who were banned as "rape apologists" - but it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that child abuse is alright. But, using the criteria of The Anarchist Tension in 2013, The Anarchist Tension was indeed apologising for rape when they wrote that paragraph. For 'tis sport, to have the engineer...

[Conscript]

Deception is not 'coercian' and informed consent is nobody's job except the person doing the consenting, lol otherwise. This discussion is dumb as hell and borderline trolling, only thing saving it is 'undermining rape culture'.

This would open up so many precedents for x kind of abuse (not just sexual) through lying it's ridiculous and impossible to legislate, let alone have someone completely unqualified like TAT try to draw the boundaries. You sure are doing a good job trivializing rape and coming off completely detached.


I thought I already explained all this...

Here's an example of non-physical force and/or violence:
"If you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill your mother."

In this example I have no used any physical violence or force against you, but through threatening said actions I have used non-physical force to make you do what I want.

This isn't that hard to understand people.Intimidation is already considering coercion and has obvious ties to violence, including in your example

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps you should stop projecting your fears onto other people. I am well aware of the fact that rape does not always look "like something from the movies", and that many rapists are convinced that they did nothing wrong. That said, this does not mean that the notion of a "non-physical force" makes any sense. Rape is not always about force - sometimes the threat of force is all that needs to me used, and this, I think, covers serious cases of emotional and social manipulation as well. But this notion of lying as a "non-physical force" conflates force, threats of force, and lying that does not include a threat of force. That is rather like the insistence of some libertarians that contractual fraud is "initiation of force".


You are missing the entire point.

The issue of non-physical force isn't related to lying. Lying involves deliberately manipulating the other's perception of reality which negates their ability to adequately assess a situation and hence give consent.

[Conscript]

You are missing the entire point.

The issue of non-physical force isn't related to lying. Lying involves deliberately manipulating the other's perception of reality which negates their ability to adequately assess a situation and hence give consent.

So when your senses give you the wrong signal your rape yourself?

Suffice to say feeding someone bad info is not 'manipulating their reality' (lmao), it makes it sound as if the right choice is x, but whether it is and whether it is chosen depends on the chooser. That is, unless you want to set up a government agency to evaluate the truth of all claims and statements so nobody has a 'disorted reality''.

Lying negates nothing, stop being melodramatic. Lying provides an appealing choice, nothing more.

[Decolonize The Left]

So when your senses give you the wrong signal your rape yourself?

Suffice to say feeding someone bad info is not 'manipulating their reality' (lmao), it makes it sound as if the right choice is x, but whether it is and whether it is chosen depends on the chooser. That is, unless you want to set up a government agency to evaluate the truth of all claims and statements so nobody has a 'disorted reality''.

Lying negates nothing, stop being melodramatic. Lying provides an appealing choice, nothing more.

http://www.astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/get-attachment.asp?action=view&attachmentid=19026

I don't even know how to respond to this. Here's a simple example:

A middle-aged man approaches a five-year old and tells this child that there's candy in his car. There isn't. This is a lie which manipulates reality. Specifically, the child's reality in believing there's candy in the car (still with me?). The child goes to the car to get the candy which doesn't exist and the man rapes the child.

See how manipulating reality - lying - is a problem?

Wait. In fact, you should probably be infracted for this sort of shit.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

To be fair, I don't think that paragraph constitutes "rape apologia". It might be shoddy analysis - and it is definitely stronger than the positions of most users who were banned as "rape apologists" - but it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that child abuse is alright. But, using the criteria of The Anarchist Tension in 2013, The Anarchist Tension was indeed apologising for rape when they wrote that paragraph. For 'tis sport, to have the engineer...

That post is definitely kind of ironic given what happened in the spart thread the other day. I'm also not sure how comfortable I am with how often that poster brings up nambla and "pedophile liberation groups". Good to know about though.

[Conscript]

Lies do not distort reality, senses form it. I'd have to get into your brain to 'distort' reality and make you incapable of making informed decisions. Lies are just bad info you consider when making a choice, so the fault lays within the chooser, your decision to believe or not, and your decision to act on that belief. To say anything else is to say the world owes you something. Also, being told something does not translate to it being true, if it was that would actually distort reality and you would make sense.

And you can stop using child examples and use adults, who take responsibility for their actions and choices.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You are missing the entire point.

The issue of non-physical force isn't related to lying. Lying involves deliberately manipulating the other's perception of reality which negates their ability to adequately assess a situation and hence give consent.

I don't think that's the case, for two reasons. First, lying does not always negate the ability of the person being lied to to assess the situation. In many cases it does, effectively if not completely, but by no means always. If the lie is obvious, or lying is common in the social context of a particular event (though I must say that I'm surprised by insinuations that lying is to be expected in dating), for example, it does not negate the ability to make a clear assessment of the situation.

Second, it seems to me that consenting to sexual activity requires (1) having the capacity to understand what sex is (this, in itself, leads to further problems, but let's say that we have an adequate grasp of what this capacity is and how to recognise it), (2) understanding what people you will have sex with, (3) understanding what sexual acts will be preformed, and (4) agreeing, without coercion, to have sex in the specified manner with the specified people. It doesn't require that one knows the entire biography of the person(s) they will have sex with - otherwise there really would be such things as rape by omission.

Of course, lying in order to have sex with someone is incredibly sleazy behaviour, and in certain circumstances it can be rape, but surely this is not always the case.



A middle-aged man approaches a five-year old and tells this child that there's candy in his car. There isn't. This is a lie which manipulates reality. Specifically, the child's reality in believing there's candy in the car (still with me?). The child goes to the car to get the candy which doesn't exist and the man rapes the child.

See how manipulating reality - lying - is a problem?

Surely the problem is in what happened to the child in the car - that is, the rape - and not in the lie about the candy? The situation would hardly be any better if there was candy in the car.

[Decolonize The Left]

Lies do not distort reality, senses form it. I'd have to get into your brain to 'distort' reality and make you incapable of making informed decisions. Lies are just bad info you consider when making a choice, so the fault lays within the chooser, your decision to believe or not, and your decision to act on that belief. To say anything else is to say the world owes you something. Also, being told something does not translate to it being true, if it was that would actually distort reality and you would make sense.

And you can stop using child examples and use adults, who take responsibility for their actions and choices.

So you're side-stepping the issue of raping a child, blaming the victim, and excusing the rapist?

Well, I'll admit that I didn't see that one coming but there it is. I get the whole individualistic ubermensch thing, I really do, but you are quite pathetic when you need to rationalize your way out of common sense.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I have never, ever done that.

But now I realise that actually those who are defending this line are actually just defending their own actions. What you people are doing is trying to justify your own behaviour.

Well, perhaps instead of trying to do that, you could reflect on your actions a bit more.

Stop making cheap, juvenile ad hominem attacks, I've lived a monogamous life and am perfectly happy. However, it doesn't mean when my girlfriend asks if she's "looking fat" that I am morally obliged to tell her "yes" - I don't want to hurt her feelings - even if I know that saying "yes" would hurt her feelings such that the might not want to have sex later. The point I'm trying to make (which you're too dense to pick up on) is that not all lies are the same.


There are many situations where deception means that someone doesn't have enough information to give informed consent, as people above have explained. It seems like some people are being deliberately dense. Lying about how much you like your date's clothing is absolutely not the same as, for example, lying about your HIV/sexual health status before you have sex, and you can't use the former to "prove" that the latter is not a serious violation. Whether or not you want to call it rape, the fact is that consent given under false pretences is not meaningful consent. In which case, someone has had sex without consent from their partner - what is that, if not rape?


Yeah the consent isn't as meaningful, but the problem isn't with this being "rape" per se, it's with possibly giving one's partner HIV. I think the point is to draw out the fact that it is not lying or manipulation alone that makes something "rape", or that a sexual act needs to be "rape" to be abusive, manipulative, or even just sleazy. The whole POINT of what I'm arguing is that not all lies are equal.



Coercion can take many forms, not just physical violence. Lying and emotional manipulation are coercive too, and whether or not you want to call it rape, using these tools of coercion to get someone to have sex with you is undeniably sexual abuse.I agree but we must emphasize that not all emotional manipulation and dishonesty is the same, and the manipulation and dishonesty which is bad can always be identified as problematic for reasons aside from issues of sexual assault or rape. The HIV case in particular is a good example because it shows how the problem with lying in these cases has to do with a broader context. Also, not all sexual assault or abuse is "rape", so just because we're not calling something "rape", it doesn't mean we think it's ok. It just means we think it's bad for reasons other than why we think rape is bad.

It seems reasonable to argue that using physical force, chemical manipulation, institutional power, manipulation of minors and so on to degrade or disregard someone's ability to consent is NOT the same as consenting under false premises, and to say that it is the same seems to disregard people's own ability to rationally scrutinize the claims of another human being and make choices on those claims. The point is that rufies, excessive alcohol consumption, manipulation of a minor/other disempowered person or physical force actually prevents consent and rational choice, whereas believing a lie is simply being too naive or gullible.


In my experience, a lot of same-sex, or at least male-male sexual violence includes acting out very rigid gender roles, with the aggressive party being seen as more masculine and therefore more dominant. Therefore it still ties in to patriarchy; as for women with structural power over men, they do not have such power as women, whereas men have power over women as men, so I think it's quite a different situation.


I'd say patriarchy still plays a role, but I don't think we can reduce it to that. Patriarchy is the norm and so one would expect that gay rape fits heterosexual patterns, but the rape itself might not be. As far as women raping men is concerned, that is true, a woman raping a man might be doing so as his employer or something like that, I just wanted to emphasize that not all rape is man-on-woman.

As much as anything else, if we blame patriarchy alone, we might ignore the fact that human beings, aside from any class or gender roles, might be willing to use physical force, drugs or institutional power to control others for sexual purposes. Patriarchy justifies such behavior, but is it the sole cause of such behavior?


You are missing the entire point.

The issue of non-physical force isn't related to lying. Lying involves deliberately manipulating the other's perception of reality which negates their ability to adequately assess a situation and hence give consent.

Yes this is the issue, but I think it's a legitimate question whether or not getting someone to consent under false premises and being unable to consent due to chemicals, physical force, being a minor etc are the same and both constitute rape. It might be as sleazy as all hell, and in many cases could be rape (for instance, manipulation with the use of alcohol or drugs, etc), but it is not always rape as not every lie or omission of fact is the same. It seems that there should be some other circumstance present to prevent the victim's ability to critically analyze their claims (like drugs or being a minor). Lies of the pernicious nature (like an HIV positive person saying that they are HIV negative) is bad and sexually abusive regardless of whether we call it rape or not. Lies between adults about to have a one night stand seems like its own category, and the strange dance of dishonesty and skepticism between partners which defines the modern dating scene is sleazy and gross, but is it "rape"?

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't think that's the case, for two reasons. First, lying does not always negate the ability of the person being lied to to assess the situation. In many cases it does, effectively if not completely, but by no means always. If the lie is obvious, or lying is common in the social context of a particular event (though I must say that I'm surprised by insinuations that lying is to be expected in dating), for example, it does not negate the ability to make a clear assessment of the situation.

Second, it seems to me that consenting to sexual activity requires (1) having the capacity to understand what sex is (this, in itself, leads to further problems, but let's say that we have an adequate grasp of what this capacity is and how to recognise it), (2) understanding what people you will have sex with, (3) understanding what sexual acts will be preformed, and (4) agreeing, without coercion, to have sex in the specified manner with the specified people. It doesn't require that one knows the entire biography of the person(s) they will have sex with - otherwise there really would be such things as rape by omission.

But I can lie about (1) what sex is, (2) who I'll have sex with, (3) what acts will be performed, (4) my agreement. So... you're point is rather moot, is it not? As you can see, my lying undermines every single aspect of your consent.



Surely the problem is in what happened to the child in the car - that is, the rape - and not in the lie about the candy? The situation would hardly be any better if there was candy in the car.

Yes, the rape is the problem but you cannot disconnect the two. The candy (or illusion thereof) led to the rape. If you don't accept that certain conditions encourage rape and rape culture then you are ignoring the majority of the problem.

[Conscript]

So you're side-stepping the issue of raping a child, blaming the victim, and excusing the rapist?

Well, I'll admit that I didn't see that one coming but there it is. I get the whole individualistic ubermensch thing, I really do, but you are quite pathetic when you need to rationalize your way out of common sense.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. :rolleyes: So you've given up arguing the point then?

In fact I'm leaving for a rapist rally soon.

Uh oh, I'm distorting your reality.

[Forward Union]

In principal, I completely agree with TAT who has provided the clearest argumentation here.

I think however that there are degrees of manipulation, and people here might be coming into this debate with different examples in their minds. It's quite common for people to present the best of themselves on a date for example, to perhaps exaggerate and even lie about their achievements, use more cosmetics to look better than usual, and even to say what they think the other person wants to hear in order to make them feel better. If one of the people involved in this courtship is woo'd into sleeping with the other, I don't think that's necessarily rape. Even if person 'a' wasn't really an investment banker but really just an assistant investment banker who'll be made redundant next week.

Another scenario might be a serial cheater who creates false identities to sleep with multiple people. Perhaps lying about his or her relationship and material situation as well as their feelings etc simply to get sex from the other. That is abusive, coercive, and I think there are strong grounds to consider the act of sex in this scenario, rape.

Another crude example, let's say a Loan shark completely lies about the content of a lengthy contract in order to cheat a person of all their savings and their home. Would you consider the victim in this scenario to be consenting when they sign the paper?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think however that there are degrees of manipulation, and people here might be coming into this debate with different examples in their minds. It's quite common for people to present the best of themselves on a date for example, to perhaps exaggerate and even lie about their achievements, use more cosmetics to look better than usual, and even to say what they think the other person wants to hear in order to make them feel better. If one of the people involved in this courtship is woo'd into sleeping with the other, I don't think that's necessarily rape. Even if person 'a' wasn't really an investment banker but really just an assistant investment banker who'll be made redundant next week.


This is the kind of case I find most problematic - saying "lying and manipulation makes consent impossible" is too broad of a claim, yet people are making it without considering the implications.



Another scenario might be a serial cheater who creates false identities to sleep with multiple people. Perhaps lying about his or her relationship and material situation as well as their feelings etc simply to get sex from the other. That is abusive, coercive, and I think there are strong grounds to consider the act of sex in this scenario, rape.


Sleazy? Yes ... rape? I think that there are other things we can call it which are just as bad and don't overlook the difference between negating someone's ability to consent and getting them to consent under false premises.



Another crude example, let's say a Loan shark completely lies about the content of a lengthy contract in order to cheat a person of all their savings and their home. Would you consider the victim in this scenario to be consenting when they sign the paper?

We would consider the basis for their consent fraudulent. Presumably, the loan shark would be charged with fraud, not with robbery or something like that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But I can lie about (1) what sex is, (2) who I'll have sex with, (3) what acts will be performed, (4) my agreement. So... you're point is rather moot, is it not? As you can see, my lying undermines every single aspect of your consent.

Alright, but my point was not that rape is never connected to lying (obviously there are situations where it is), but that lying in a sexual context is not necessarily rape. But how can you lie about your agreement? I mean, I can understand the other points in some situations - though (2) is phrased rather badly; I suppose you were describing a situation in which X agrees to sleep with Y, but then Y changes place with Z - but (4) doesn't make much sense. Why would someone lie and say that they agree to something if they do not, and how is that raping another person?


Yes, the rape is the problem but you cannot disconnect the two. The candy (or illusion thereof) led to the rape. If you don't accept that certain conditions encourage rape and rape culture then you are ignoring the majority of the problem.

The lie about candy led to the situation where the child is helpless and in the presence of a sexual predator, but other factors could have led to the same situation - and indeed, I think that the nuclear family and standard housing arrangements lead to these situations more often than strangers in sinister cars lying about candy. What encourages rape is the violence against women, young people, men who dissent from patriarchy, and so on, I think.


I'd say patriarchy still plays a role, but I don't think we can reduce it to that. Patriarchy is the norm and so one would expect that gay rape fits heterosexual patterns, but the rape itself might not be. As far as women raping men is concerned, that is true, a woman raping a man might be doing so as his employer or something like that, I just wanted to emphasize that not all rape is man-on-woman.

As much as anything else, if we blame patriarchy alone, we might ignore the fact that human beings, aside from any class or gender roles, might be willing to use physical force, drugs or institutional power to control others for sexual purposes. Patriarchy justifies such behavior, but is it the sole cause of such behavior?

Does this not assume, though, that the power of individuals over other individuals is something that transcends the mode of production, and not a social form tied to the definite class structure of present society (and of past societies, of course)?

[Fred]

If you use deceit/force/trickery etc. to get someone to have sex with you, it's rape. I don't understand the confusion here.

If a woman won't sleep with you, you don't go about trying to trick her to do it.

Hold on, it's only rape if a male tricks a female? What about a girl that lies about her age to a guy who otherwise wouldn't have sex with her. Is that rape? What about a guy that lies to a girl that he will date her if they have sex? It fits your definition. Should the person lying be faced with decades in prison as a result of this? What characterizes Douche's and Tension's views here is a black and white view of human relationships which are often very nuanced and complex. I would like to assure both of them that they will wind up making gross errors by approaching the question that way. Even the category that is used here, "rape apologist" is dubious.

This all smacks of petite bourgeois moralism with each of you trying to out do the other as the most ardent protector of women and children.

As we discovered in another thread, the word, "tricked" is a really poor one to use without operationalizing the definition.

[Luís Henrique]

There are other examples, but here is a good list of things.

I don't think this explains what manipulation or deception constitutes. It is a list (perhaps even a good list) of tactics used by people who manipulate or are deceptive, but it fails to go to the point of what constitutes manipulation.

For instance:


Brandishing anger: Manipulator uses anger to brandish sufficient emotional intensity and rage to shock the victim into submission. The manipulator is not actually angry, he or she just puts on an act. He just wants what he wants and gets "angry" when denied.

If Brad Pitt, or Elisabeth of Saxe-Coburg, want to have sex with me, and are denied, they can feign anger as much as they want, they won't get any closer to getting it. That is because manipulation isn't in the behaviour itself, but in the relation between the manipulator and the victim. So, if instead of Brad Pitt or Queen Elisabeth, it is my boss, my professor, my father, my physician - then we can talk of manipulation; these people, because of their relation to me, are in a position to manipulate my emotions. But this starts with the fact that I do have emotions regarding such people, that I don't have to total strangers. It is such emotions, that when used to harm me, constitute what you call a "non-physical" force, that may allow people to manipulate me.

*****************

I think that if we want to be serious in discussing rape we have to look at the consequences of what we are proposing.

Rape is an awful crime. I suppose you agree with me that a victim of rape has the right of self-defence, and that such self-defence easily amounts to killing the aggressor.

Now let's see what happens if we adopt your watered-down definition of rape. Suppose John meets Mary in the pub, they are attracted to each other, they talk, dance, kiss, and finally go to some place where they can enjoy sex. Now everything is great, they have fun, orgasms, a wonderful end of night. Mary falls asleep and John reaches for his cigarettes in the little table by the side of the bed. Unfortunately, in doing so, he knocks Mary's purse out of the table, and the purse falls open, revealing all its contents. John stands up and starts to pick Mary's things to put them back into the purse... and is shocked to discover Mary's ID card, in which she appears not as Mary, but as Ebenezer. According to your criteria, Mary has just raped John, by omitting her transexuality. And see, we had agreed that rape is such an horrible crime that it justifies the killing of the agressor. So is John entitled to kill Mary, and be acquitted on grounds of self-defence?

If not, why not? Wouldn't it be because we really don't believe that what Mary did to John, while perhaps quite reprehensible, is by no means in the same league as rape?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Incidentally, I just discovered that prisoners in America cannot legally give their consent to sex.

Which is, if you ask me, a very good legal provision.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I thought I already explained all this...

Here's an example of non-physical force and/or violence:
"If you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill your mother."

I think this is an example of a threat of very physical violence.


In this example I have no used any physical violence or force against you, but through threatening said actions I have used non-physical force to make you do what I want.

This isn't that hard to understand people.

It isn't, but I don't think anyone is arguing that threats of violence don't qualify as physical violence or may otherwise be acceptable as a means to get anything, sex included.

Luís Henrique

[human strike]

Some in this thread have suggested that considering lying to get sex rape is triviliasing rape. That isn't triviliasing, it's revealing just how common and tragically normal rape is. There is this idea that rape is something violently committed by strangers in dark alleyways - this is a myth and a notion that seriously needs challenging. Rape culture is prolific on the Left, as it is elsewhere, and I think this strict notion of rape presented by some here is a part of that culture. We need a new, correct way of thinking about and dealing with rape.

EDIT: Obviously where I've said "this is a myth" I actually mean that the idea most rape happens like that is a myth, not that it never happens like that.

[Beeth]

Could someone please answer this?

John wants to get Jane in bed, so he lies to her that he is rich. But then Jane also wants John in bed, so she lies to him about her age. In such a scenario, both of them are rapists and rape victims at the same time?

[Luís Henrique]

I don't even know how to respond to this. Here's a simple example:

A middle-aged man approaches a five-year old and tells this child that there's candy in his car. There isn't. This is a lie which manipulates reality.

How utterly ridiculous. The point is not the lie, the point is the sexual relation between the adult and the five-year old, which constitutes rape. If there are tons of candies in the car, and if the man gives lots of it to the child, it is absolutely no less of a rape. So, the rape is not in the lie, the rape is in... the rape, darnit!

Luís Henrique

[Forward Union]

This is the kind of case I find most problematic - saying "lying and manipulation makes consent impossible" is too broad of a claim, yet people are making it without considering the implications.

Sleazy? Yes ... rape? I think that there are other things we can call it which are just as bad and don't overlook the difference between negating someone's ability to consent and getting them to consent under false premises.


Rape isn't just when someone jumps out of a bush with his pants down and a knife in his hand, a passed out girl at a university party, or an abusive husband forcing himself onto a struggling wife. These are cliches. They do happen of course, and are horrific acts of violence and rape. But rape is, as has been said here, penetration without consent.

Actually what constitutes consent is difficult to say. Different people have different qualifications, but it's easy to say what does not constitute consent, and when it is lacking. If you are in any doubt you should assume you do not have consent. And if the person says at the time, or later they didn't consent, they didn't consent.

[Luís Henrique]

Rape isn't just when someone jumps out of a bush with his pants down and a knife in his hand, a passed out girl at a university party, or an abusive husband forcing himself onto a struggling wife. These are cliches. They do happen of course, and are horrific acts of violence and rape. But rape is, as has been said here, penetration without consent.

Actually what constitutes consent is difficult to say. Different people have different qualifications, but it's easy to say what does not constitute consent, and when it is lacking. If you are in any doubt you should assume you do not have consent. And if the person says at the time, or later they didn't consent, they didn't consent.

Well, the point is that people do avoid telling their partners things that they fear would remove consent (I actually have two children, I am married, I am a trans-woman, I will probably cheat on you if I have a chance, I am indeed cheating on you, I really think your opinions are foolish, I think you are really overweight, I don't really love you anymore - just accostumed to your presence, etc.), and also people do say things to get others sexually interested in them. And then they will get positive and "enthusiastic" consent, and the point under discussion here is whether such consent not being correctly informed amounts to rape or not.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Perhaps it is best that we allow ourselves to distinguish rape as forcible sex without consent on any level and, while recognizing it as reprehensible, receiving consent on a false premise as two phenomena which should not be left interchangeable, not only would doing so unscientific ("Some rape is worse than others") and trivializing of rape, it completely ignores the psychological and social context of said occurances. The act of rape has very severe psychological leverage and while lying to get someone in bed is condemnable it is not the same as rape, it is consent under false premises. If there is no threat of violence, which can be physical or otherwise (blackmail and so on) it is not rape.

[Rafiq]

I thought I already explained all this...

Here's an example of non-physical force and/or violence:
"If you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill your mother."

In this example I have no used any physical violence or force against you, but through threatening said actions I have used non-physical force to make you do what I want.

This isn't that hard to understand people.

Indeed I agree, rape doesn't necessarily have to be physical. But it is important to distinguish this from consent under false premises which excludes all threats and so on. Even to say "If you don't have sex with me, I'm going to kill myself" I would consider a form of rape. But without direct force or any form of threat then I would not

[Luís Henrique]

Even to say "If you don't have sex with me, I'm going to kill myself" I would consider a form of rape. But without direct force or any form of threat then I would not

As we agree that killing a rapist is a valid self-defence response, I would say that such situation gets solved by itself. You say, "go ahead, do it", and either the other person stops wasting oxygen or moves back to rationality.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Another scenario might be a serial cheater who creates false identities to sleep with multiple people. Perhaps lying about his or her relationship and material situation as well as their feelings etc simply to get sex from the other. That is abusive, coercive, and I think there are strong grounds to consider the act of sex in this scenario, rape.

Yeah, in this situation I think I would agree. I notice, though, that in this thread, people (on both sides) are making up a lot of really shitty hypotheticals that are barely related to the discussion (lying to a kid about candy isn't the operative "thing" in that situation, lying to someone you're about to sleep with about what you had for breakfast that day has nothing to do with anything).

[The Feral Underclass]

Perhaps you should stop projecting your fears onto other people.

Fears about what?


That said, this does not mean that the notion of a "non-physical force" makes any sense.

What then is surplus value if not the non-physical forcible extraction of value from other people's labour?


Rape is not always about force - sometimes the threat of force is all that needs to me used, and this, I think, covers serious cases of emotional and social manipulation as well.

But the threat of force and the application of manipulation are designed to force someone to comply.


But this notion of lying as a "non-physical force" conflates force, threats of force, and lying that does not include a threat of force. That is rather like the insistence of some libertarians that contractual fraud is "initiation of force".

Perhaps you should read the thread, okay, because these points have been covered already. This is not about defining lying as force, this is about using deception in order to create force.


I was wondering when you would start screaming about "rape apology". Perhaps you should wonder which of us is trivialising rape - I, who try to point out how rape is connected to the systematic violence against women by men, or you, who apparently think that a married woman sleeping with a man without telling him about her marital status is a rapist.

Rape apology and trivialising rape are really two different things. You are able to have that view and at the same time apologise for rape. You are the one arguing the consent is valid if it is given through manipulation or deception. That means that you think it is okay for people to manipulate and deceive people into doing something they don't want to do.


To be fair, I don't think that paragraph constitutes "rape apologia". It might be shoddy analysis - and it is definitely stronger than the positions of most users who were banned as "rape apologists" - but it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that child abuse is alright. But, using the criteria of The Anarchist Tension in 2013, The Anarchist Tension was indeed apologising for rape when they wrote that paragraph. For 'tis sport, to have the engineer...

I am going to address this nonsense once and for all:


“13 is the age of consent in various countries including South Korea and Mexico.

This is a fact.


Some could argue that America’s (and other peoples) social conservatism is the problem.”

It is a fact that some could argue that America's social conservatism is the problem? Or do you want to argue that the cultures of South Korea or Mexico are just sexually depraved?


How many of us have had sexual fantasies about children or “youths”? Perhaps it was a flash in the recesses of masturbation? Perhaps you’ve even entertained elaborate narratives or role played with partners? How many of us are truly prepared to admit that, at some point, as transient or as complex as it may have been, we have considered what it was like to have sex with a child?

Three questions. Not statements. Questions. They are, I admit, quite controversial, but then again the point of them was to be controversial. The whole article was an effort to challenge people's views on how to deal with paedophilia.

I am a survivor of grooming and child rape. I have also made an award winning short film about a paedophile. Because of these things I was asked by a magazine to write an article on why I was making the film. Because of these facts I have had no choice but to consider it.

All these questions aim to do is challenge other people to do so. I assume most people have considered it at some point otherwise how would you know you didn't want to do it?

Perhaps people don't think about it as much as I have had to, but then again people could just say that since I am asking them this question!

I realise that for the ignorant readers amongst us, and especially when quoted out of context, they may appear bizarre, but I am not in any way suggesting anything by asking them and I am certainly not giving an analysis or opinion.


That “right” to have sex with children was taken away with the creation of the age of consent, which came into existence as a reaction to child prostitution during in the thirteenth century.

That is a fact.


It was allegedly quite popular and to tackle this problem they had the bright idea of setting the age that children could legally have sex (with anyone) at twelve.

This is also a fact.


This was raised to thirteen six hundred years later in the Victorian era, as is the case in some Latin American countries and South Korea now, incidentally. The age of consent in the UK as it stands is sixteen, but in other European countries the age is mostly fourteen.

This is also a fact.


These ages are so inconsistent around the word, both historically and in a contemporary sense that they appear totally arbitrary”

Note the word "appear."

Aside from that what else would age of consent laws appear to be if not totally arbitrary, since they are at different ages ranging from 12 to 21.

Of course, they're not arbitrary because they serve specific cultural and social functions, some based on moral conservatism (as I suggested could be the issue) and for more patriarchal reasons.

In any case, none of those facts or questions were analysis, nor were they opinions.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think this explains what manipulation or deception constitutes. It is a list (perhaps even a good list) of tactics used by people who manipulate or are deceptive, but it fails to go to the point of what constitutes manipulation.

You asked me what manipulation and deception were so I answered your question.


If Brad Pitt, or Elisabeth of Saxe-Coburg, want to have sex with me, and are denied, they can feign anger as much as they want, they won't get any closer to getting it. That is because manipulation isn't in the behaviour itself, but in the relation between the manipulator and the victim.

I think both are true. The manipulation comes if the person is successful, I agree. They are, nevertheless, attempting to use manipulation. The fact they failed doesn't make their behaviour any less manipulative, it just means their manipulation didn't succeed. In other words, they are still attempting to apply non-physical force, even if their force didn't get them any where.


So, if instead of Brad Pitt or Queen Elisabeth, it is my boss, my professor, my father, my physician - then we can talk of manipulation; these people, because of their relation to me, are in a position to manipulate my emotions. But this starts with the fact that I do have emotions regarding such people, that I don't have to total strangers. It is such emotions, that when used to harm me, constitute what you call a "non-physical" force, that may allow people to manipulate me.

People in those positions are better able to manipulate more successfully. They are able to apply that non-physical force with better results.


I think that if we want to be serious in discussing rape we have to look at the consequences of what we are proposing.

Rape is an awful crime. I suppose you agree with me that a victim of rape has the right of self-defence, and that such self-defence easily amounts to killing the aggressor.

Now let's see what happens if we adopt your watered-down definition of rape. Suppose John meets Mary in the pub, they are attracted to each other, they talk, dance, kiss, and finally go to some place where they can enjoy sex. Now everything is great, they have fun, orgasms, a wonderful end of night. Mary falls asleep and John reaches for his cigarettes in the little table by the side of the bed. Unfortunately, in doing so, he knocks Mary's purse out of the table, and the purse falls open, revealing all its contents. John stands up and starts to pick Mary's things to put them back into the purse... and is shocked to discover Mary's ID card, in which she appears not as Mary, but as Ebenezer. According to your criteria, Mary has just raped John, by omitting her transexuality. And see, we had agreed that rape is such an horrible crime that it justifies the killing of the agressor. So is John entitled to kill Mary, and be acquitted on grounds of self-defence?

But even within bourgeois law there are different levels of rape. I would not argue that it was okay for John to kill Mary, but I would agree that she has used force to get what she wanted. In other words yes, I think that Mary did rape John and that is a serious thing that she did. It doesn't mean she should die.


If not, why not? Wouldn't it be because we really don't believe that what Mary did to John, while perhaps quite reprehensible, is by no means in the same league as rape?

As I said above I think it is as serious. I don't think it's as damaging or as brutal as victims of violent physical attacks. It obviously isn't as serious as violent rape, but it is still rape.

[The Feral Underclass]

Stop making cheap, juvenile ad hominem attacks, I've lived a monogamous life and am perfectly happy. However, it doesn't mean when my girlfriend asks if she's "looking fat" that I am morally obliged to tell her "yes" - I don't want to hurt her feelings - even if I know that saying "yes" would hurt her feelings such that the might not want to have sex later.

Saying you don't think someone looks fat because they are your girlfriend is not remotely the same as using deception and manipulation to get someone to have sex with you. I don't understand why you're having difficulty understanding this?

What you are saying is juvenile.

[human strike]

Perhaps it is best that we allow ourselves to distinguish rape as forcible sex without consent on any level and, while recognizing it as reprehensible, receiving consent on a false premise as two phenomena which should not be left interchangeable, not only would doing so unscientific ("Some rape is worse than others") and trivializing of rape, it completely ignores the psychological and social context of said occurances. The act of rape has very severe psychological leverage and while lying to get someone in bed is condemnable it is not the same as rape, it is consent under false premises. If there is no threat of violence, which can be physical or otherwise (blackmail and so on) it is not rape.

Does that not demean the psychological impact consent gained through deceit can have on a person? For instance, there is currently a case being brought against the Metropolitan Police by several women here in the UK. During the 90s undercover officers who had infiltrated activist groups had sex with these women (some of them formed long lasting relationships and even had children with the cops), but none were aware that the men were undercover cops until long after the event. This, to me, is undeniably rape and potentially incredibly traumatic for these women. One woman described how she now has problems trusting people and forming relationships and is it any surprise? This is just one example of how severe, and I would say extremely violent this sort of rape can be. Certainly one of these women described themselves as having been "raped by the state".

[Geiseric]

This thread is idiotic. Internet leftists arguing about things already established as objective facts is a joke and I hope No prospective leftists see this thread, especially woman or younger comrades. It reeks of double speak chauvinism. I can't believe this thread wasnt trashed seeing the absurdity of this topic. I would in a second kill any spart or fuckhead baby boomer generation sectarians who coerced, manipulated, or somehow in any way "swindled" or "tricked" a minor or honestly anybody into having sex with them. You know what I mean, and this nuance bullshit from mr. Spartacist should not be tolerated. Infract me, I really don't care, but this discussion is ridiculous and wouldn't be happening if the other spart supporters (Such as Marxist historian and lev) were not banned for rape apologia.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fears about what?

Fear of the backward antisocial elements who oppose your perfectly logical position - and who therefore must all be unreconstructed machistic swine. Or, perhaps, you don't even believe that, and are simply trying to instigate a moral panic to defend the actions of your friends in the administration.


What then is surplus value if not the non-physical forcible extraction of value from other people's labour?

There is nothing non-physical about the mechanisms of the bourgeois dictatorship - the prisons and the factories built to resemble them, the police, the security personnel and the fascist squads, cameras, degrading tests - all of these are quite physical. And surplus value does not need to be extracted forcibly - the worker being exploited can be the most willing, most informed (to stave off ridiculous objections about nonphysical force) supporter of the bourgeois regime, the objective fact of their exploitation remains the same.


But the threat of force and the application of manipulation are designed to force someone to comply.

It's almost as if words have several meanings and are used in a variety of ways depending on the context.


Perhaps you should read the thread, okay, because these points have been covered already. This is not about defining lying as force, this is about using deception in order to create force.

"No, except yes."


Rape apology and trivialising rape are really two different things. You are able to have that view and at the same time apologise for rape. You are the one arguing the consent is valid if it is given through manipulation or deception. That means that you think it is okay for people to manipulate and deceive people into doing something they don't want to do.

Or, perhaps, I think that force, and I mean physical force, not this mysterious mental force of deception, is not the only thing that invalidates consent. But, no, that would be too nuanced.

I have no idea why I let myself be dragged into this discussion. Words are arbitrary. You can redefine them as you like. Far be it from me to stop you. But if you think someone hiding their trans* status from their partner is qualitatively the same as someone raping a kid in the back of a car or fondling an unconscious woman, then, as far as I'm concerned, you've gone mad with supposedly "progressive" absolutism.


It is a fact that some could argue that America's social conservatism is the problem? Or do you want to argue that the cultures of South Korea or Mexico are just sexually depraved?

Some might argue that people who are afraid of directly arguing for a position sometimes portray it as the opinion of unspecified third parties.


Three questions. Not statements. Questions. They are, I admit, quite controversial, but then again the point of them was to be controversial. The whole article was an effort to challenge people's views on how to deal with paedophilia.

I don't care if you have paedophilic thoughts. I'm not with the Santebal or the bloody Church. It's your actions and theoretical positions that count. And I wasn't attacking you - I was simply pointing out that by the rotten standards you apply, you are a rape apologist. Nothing more.


This thread is idiotic. Internet leftists arguing about things already established as objective facts is a joke and I hope No prospective leftists see this thread, especially woman or younger comrades. It reeks of double speak chauvinism.

If anything is doublespeak, it would be the suggestion that a trans* or gay person hiding their identity is rape. Or that an extramarital affair is rape. It would also be quite patriarchal - but those who defend such views fail to notice that, just as radical idealistic feminists don't notice when they've crossed over to the side of transphobia.


I would in a second kill any spart or fuckhead baby boomer generation sectarians who coerced, manipulated, or somehow in any way "swindled" or "tricked" a minor or honestly anybody into having sex with them. You know what I mean, and this nuance bullshit from mr. Spartacist should not be tolerated. Infract me, I really don't care, but this discussion is ridiculous and wouldn't be happening if the other spart supporters (Such as Marxist historian and lev) were not banned for rape apologia.

And if you'd bothered to read my posts, I haven't mentioned the age of consent, Spartacists or Lev Bronsteinovich once. Nor have I defended manipulation. What I have spoken against is the ridiculous notion that every lie associated with sex constitutes rape. I prefer that term to be linked to sexual violence connected with the class and patriarchal nature of society. That is, I think, the only materialist approach. Anything else gets bogged down in ridiculous minutiae. At the end of the day, I am quite sure that I do not want to rape children, that I do not condone the raping of children, but neither do I condone stretching the term "rape" so much everyone who has told an untruth to their partner is a rapist. And of course, anyone who opposes batko TAT is a rape apologist.

[Luís Henrique]

I think both are true. The manipulation comes if the person is successful, I agree. They are, nevertheless, attempting to use manipulation. The fact they failed doesn't make their behaviour any less manipulative, it just means their manipulation didn't succeed. In other words, they are still attempting to apply non-physical force, even if their force didn't get them any where.

People in those positions are better able to manipulate more successfully. They are able to apply that non-physical force with better results.

So what is that mysterious non-physical force? To me, if it makes any sence it is the social power that some people have over others. It certainly can't be some metaphysical entity that some people supposedly possess - charisma, "charm", "it"?


But even within bourgeois law there are different levels of rape.

Well, evidently. Any crime has different levels, circumstances, aggravating or atenuating, that have to be considered when trying the supposed criminal. Killing a ten year old because he stole your newspaper from your front door is different from killing a racist bully that has been threatening you and drawing swastikas in your porch. But different levels or circumstances of a crime are one thing, different crimes are another. The issue is whether something like lying to another person about transexuality is the same crime as forcing someone into having sex at point gun, or by threatening to divulge in the internet the fact they have been dating three different guys while married. What exactly what we gain by classifying Mary's cheat on John as "rape", except creating an atmosphere where killing a person like Mary at least appears to be justifiable?


I would not argue that it was okay for John to kill Mary, but I would agree that she has used force to get what she wanted. In other words yes, I think that Mary did rape John and that is a serious thing that she did. It doesn't mean she should die.

Well. I would say a rape is something that justifies killing the rapist in the act. And I would say that something that does not justify killing the perpetrator in the act is not rape.

In other words, while I am not completely unsympathetic to John's outrage or sorrow, I don't think it is even remotely comparable to that of a person that has been actually raped. I think he would be justified in waking Mary up and telling her to get out and never show up again, or to quietly leave and never answer to her calls again, or to do it and leave a note telling her that she is a liar and a scoundrel - but not to kill her, and not even to go to a police station and file a complaint against her behaviour. Which is to mean I think it is a quite sordid lie, but not a crime of any kind, much less a rape.


As I said above I think it is as serious. I don't think it's as damaging or as brutal as victims of violent physical attacks. It obviously isn't as serious as violent rape, but it is still rape.

So anyway we already have to distinguish between "rape" and "violent rape". After having conflating those things, we are now compelled to separate them anew. Why conflate them first place then?

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Does that not demean the psychological impact consent gained through deceit can have on a person? For instance, there is currently a case being brought against the Metropolitan Police by several women here in the UK. During the 90s undercover officers who had infiltrated activist groups had sex with these women (some of them formed long lasting relationships and even had children with the cops), but none were aware that the men were undercover cops until long after the event. This, to me, is undeniably rape and potentially incredibly traumatic for these women. One woman described how she now has problems trusting people and forming relationships and is it any surprise? This is just one example of how severe, and I would say extremely violent this sort of rape can be. Certainly one of these women described themselves as having been "raped by the state".

I agree that this kind of manipulation could be called rape. It is the kind of problematic case that shows how manipulation can make consent meaningless in certain contexts. The question is, what kind of manipulation or dishonesty constitutes "Rape"? Is any person who uses a pseudonym, makes up tall tales or lies about their job at a bar a rapist (and these are not absurdly rare hypotheticals but normatively accepted parts of flirting)? Clearly, it is NOT the same kind of severe emotional manipulation faced by a woman who falls in love with an undercover agent.



Does this not assume, though, that the power of individuals over other individuals is something that transcends the mode of production, and not a social form tied to the definite class structure of present society (and of past societies, of course)?

Not at all. Of course such things will only ever happen within whatever social frameworks that exist. I just think rape predates patriarchy, and could well continue to exist without it, even if it generally takes patriarchal form in our society.


Rape isn't just when someone jumps out of a bush with his pants down and a knife in his hand, a passed out girl at a university party, or an abusive husband forcing himself onto a struggling wife. These are cliches. They do happen of course, and are horrific acts of violence and rape. But rape is, as has been said here, penetration without consent.


I don't think I presented this cliche view of rape at all. I've been talking about manipulation of drunk people, use of drugs, blackmail, manipulation by employers and so on this whole time because I think that they're all different than someone consenting to sex under a false premise.


Actually what constitutes consent is difficult to say. Different people have different qualifications, but it's easy to say what does not constitute consent, and when it is lacking. If you are in any doubt you should assume you do not have consent. And if the person says at the time, or later they didn't consent, they didn't consent.It seems absurd if people can retroactively withdraw consent (although I can see how people might delude themselves into saying they consented when they didn't, the cliche case being the college girl who blames herself for a rape and thus denies that it was rape). Whether or not a person can say later that they didn't really consent seems to depend on the situation, such as use of alcohol or drug abuse.

I agree that the issue of consent is problematic, however, and people have different definitions, but it's good to work this out BEFORE people start accusing each other of being "rape apologists" or whatever (as TAT has done) because this is a legitimate question.


Perhaps it is best that we allow ourselves to distinguish rape as forcible sex without consent on any level and, while recognizing it as reprehensible, receiving consent on a false premise as two phenomena which should not be left interchangeable, not only would doing so unscientific ("Some rape is worse than others") and trivializing of rape, it completely ignores the psychological and social context of said occurances. The act of rape has very severe psychological leverage and while lying to get someone in bed is condemnable it is not the same as rape, it is consent under false premises. If there is no threat of violence, which can be physical or otherwise (blackmail and so on) it is not rape.

Yeah this is what I've been saying (although I don't think it's really been addressed)


Saying you don't think someone looks fat because they are your girlfriend is not remotely the same as using deception and manipulation to get someone to have sex with you. I don't understand why you're having difficulty understanding this?

What you are saying is juvenile.

The point is that people haven't offered any reasonable criteria for what is "manipulating and deceiving" and what are reasonable white lies, and what exists in between. You are the juvenile one for accusing others of rape apology or whatever else without even bothering to offer a clear criterion, and by trying to insult other posters as opposed to have an honest debate. You're basically ignoring the very real problem here so that you can moralistically assert your assumed paradigm for what constitutes consent, without acknowledging the problems others have with it. I gave you the dumbed down example I did precisely because you're being dense, and because you were accusing me of being someone I wasn't.

Your dogmatic moralism has blinded you to what people are actually saying, and yeah, I needed to offer you a juvenile example to get around your pigheadedness.


This thread is idiotic. Internet leftists arguing about things already established as objective facts is a joke and I hope No prospective leftists see this thread, especially woman or younger comrades. It reeks of double speak chauvinism. I can't believe this thread wasnt trashed seeing the absurdity of this topic. I would in a second kill any spart or fuckhead baby boomer generation sectarians who coerced, manipulated, or somehow in any way "swindled" or "tricked" a minor or honestly anybody into having sex with them. You know what I mean, and this nuance bullshit from mr. Spartacist should not be tolerated. Infract me, I really don't care, but this discussion is ridiculous and wouldn't be happening if the other spart supporters (Such as Marxist historian and lev) were not banned for rape apologia.

That's not the issue here, the question is what KIND of manipulation negates consent, because clearly not all dishonesty or lying (as the thread title says - this is not just about coercion but "lying" and "manipulation" only defined vaguely) negates consent. If you lie to a minor, they already lack the ability to consent, and clearly white lies are not the issue, so where does the border lie? If you're going to accuse someone of rape, you need a solid ground. Anyways, just because someone is saying XYZ is not rape, it does NOT mean that they approve of it.

I agree that the thread is dumb, but mainly because the quality of debate has gone downhill fast. Nobody is apologizing for rape, justifying the manipulation of minors or even saying it is morally/ethically/politically acceptable to manipulate people for sex, people are just curious as to what kind of dishonesty or manipulation would count as rape. And that question has NOT been objectively answered.

[The Feral Underclass]

So what is that mysterious non-physical force? To me, if it makes any sence it is the social power that some people have over others.

It's not mysterious! It is a very real thing that happens all the time to people. Sure, we can call it "social power" if you want to. Some people try and exercise it and fail, others exercise it and succeed.


The issue is whether something like lying to another person about transexuality is the same crime as forcing someone into having sex at point gun, or by threatening to divulge in the internet the fact they have been dating three different guys while married. What exactly what we gain by classifying Mary's cheat on John as "rape", except creating an atmosphere where killing a person like Mary at least appears to be justifiable?

Lying to someone about your transexuality is not rape, it's not even a crime. Not divulging that information to someone you know would not want to sleep with you, in order to do just that is.

Blackmailing someone into sleeping with you is most definitely rape.

I don't think people should be killed for raping people. I am an advocate of restorative justice in any case and oppose the death penalty for social crimes. If you are looking for me to provide a positive out come for classifying such behaviour as rape then I can't give you one.

There is nothing positive about this situation. There is nothing to be "gained" by it. It is all horrible and tragic. It is, however, a necessary step to take if we are to undermine the culture of rape and prevent these otherwise "grey areas" being used as justifications for perpetuating sexual abuse.

Perhaps in a post-revolutionary society the community can address Mary's behaviour collectively and perhaps Mary would compel herself not to continue abusing people...I'm sure Mary can find someone who doesn't care.


Well. I would say a rape is something that justifies killing the rapist in the act. And I would say that something that does not justify killing the perpetrator in the act is not rape.

Well, I'm not really sure there is a response to that position. I have nothing to say about your personal preferences or criteria for defining who is and isn't a rapist.


In other words, while I am not completely unsympathetic to John's outrage or sorrow, I don't think it is even remotely comparable to that of a person that has been actually raped.

But John was also raped, insofar as he was forced to give his consent through Mary's deception.

But you are right, it is not comparable to the horror of having your consent taken by physical force.


I think he would be justified in waking Mary up and telling her to get out and never show up again, or to quietly leave and never answer to her calls again, or to do it and leave a note telling her that she is a liar and a scoundrel - but not to kill her, and not even to go to a police station and file a complaint against her behaviour. Which is to mean I think it is a quite sordid lie, but not a crime of any kind, much less a rape.

I realise that the act of rape is categorised as a "crime" and I suspect it will continue on as such in a post-revolutionary society. How we deal with these issues now and how we deal with then will be very different, however.

No, it's probably pointless to file such a complaint with the police, and I wouldn't advocate that anyway as the bourgeois legal system is fundamentally at odds with creating a restorative process.

In a post-revolutionary system there would definitely need to be some sort of mediation. Just writing a note or waking them up and confronting them isn't dealing with the situation or addressing the fundamental principle that Mary took consent from John by force.

The community should intervene if John feels that should happen and Mary should be rebuked by society, and told she must change her behaviour.

Incidentally, an Israeli Jewish woman achieved a rape conviction against an Palestinian man because he told her she was Jewish. I suspect there were probably other motives involved. (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew))


So anyway we already have to distinguish between "rape" and "violent rape". After having conflating those things, we are now compelled to separate them anew. Why conflate them first place then?

But I have never had an issue with making those distinctions, providing that they are both characterised as rape.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean...

He's saying you ended up with the same category you started with, it's just now you have "rape" and "less bad rape", and IMO the category of "less bad rape" is itself problematic for obvious reasons



Incidentally, an Israeli Jewish woman achieved a rape conviction against an Israeli Arab because he told her she was Jewish. I suspect there were probably other motives involved. (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew))

I think throwing people into jail for "rape" over lying about their ethnicity or religion is precisely the kind of lying or dishonesty that should not get people thrown in jail, but is considered "rape" according to this blanket definition being thrown around that any manipulation or dishonesty effectively negates consent.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well... I just discussed this whole issue with my ladyfriend while we were out walking. Her perspective, as a woman who is familiar with these issues, is that there's a big difference between deception/manipulation and rape. In the former, the person was a consenting adult who agreed to a sexual act willingly but on false pretenses. This is fucked up and shouldn't be accepted, but it isn't rape. In the latter a person did not agree to consensual sex but was forced to have it anyway. This is rape.

In other words, you can't look back at the act after the fact - which you consented to - and frame it otherwise.

She said that it comes down to legal issues as this is the framework through which 'crimes' are processed and so it should be looked at in terms of legality and not in terms of abstract theory.

It was a good discussion. She did not have an answer for my question in regards to can someone actually consent to something when they don't know what they're consenting to. I believe that this is the crux of the issue.

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is that people haven't offered any reasonable criteria for what is "manipulating and deceiving" and what are reasonable white lies, and what exists in between.

If you cannot work out through basic reasoning that telling your girlfriend whom you love that she doesn't look fat in order to spare her feelings, and using deception and manipulation to force someone to give you their sexual consent then I really don't know what more can be said to you.

If you want to explain what is unreasonable about this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2633200&postcount=101) and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2633202&postcount=102) post, then feel free.


You are the juvenile one

No you!


for accusing others of rape apology or whatever else without even bothering to offer a clear criterion

Except I have offered a clear criterion, pretty much repeatedly throughout this thread, you're just too lazy to read.

[The Feral Underclass]

He's saying you ended up with the same category you started with, it's just now you have "rape" and "less bad rape", and IMO the category of "less bad rape" is itself problematic for obvious reasons

What is statutory rape then? Not rape? Or is it less bad rape than beating up a woman and forcing yourself inside her while she struggles?


I think throwing people into jail for "rape" over lying about their ethnicity or religion is precisely the kind of lying or dishonesty that should not get people thrown in jail, but is considered "rape" according to this blanket definition being thrown around that any manipulation or dishonesty effectively negates consent.

Obviously she is a racist and obviously so is the Israeli state and the reason this man went to prison is because he is Palestinian, but nevertheless, he knew he was impeding her right to offer consent. He knew she would not sleep with him if he didn't tell her he was Jewish and therefore used deception to force her to consent -- it was rape.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well... I just discussed this whole issue with my ladyfriend while we were out walking. Her perspective, as a woman who is familiar with these issues, is that there's a big difference between deception/manipulation and rape. In the former, the person was a consenting adult who agreed to a sexual act willingly but on false pretenses. This is fucked up and shouldn't be accepted, but it isn't rape. In the latter a person did not agree to consensual sex but was forced to have it anyway. This is rape.

In other words, you can't look back at the act after the fact - which you consented to - and frame it otherwise.

She said that it comes down to legal issues as this is the framework through which 'crimes' are processed and so it should be looked at in terms of legality and not in terms of abstract theory.

It was a good discussion. She did not have an answer for my question in regards to can someone actually consent to something when they don't know what they're consenting to. I believe that this is the crux of the issue.

I think also we have to understand what force is and whether it can only be applied physically.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well... I just discussed this whole issue with my ladyfriend while we were out walking. Her perspective, as a woman who is familiar with these issues, is that there's a big difference between deception/manipulation and rape. In the former, the person was a consenting adult who agreed to a sexual act willingly but on false pretenses. This is fucked up and shouldn't be accepted, but it isn't rape. In the latter a person did not agree to consensual sex but was forced to have it anyway. This is rape.


This! Although there are really problematic cases, as in the case of undercover police who sleep with activists



It was a good discussion. She did not have an answer for my question in regards to can someone actually consent to something when they don't know what they're consenting to. I believe that this is the crux of the issue.

I think the issue is that their consent is highly problematic in that circumstance - but the person who is unable to consent (due to age, drugging etc) is simply unable to critically analyze the lies and manipulations of the other, while the person being manipulated still has the ability to view their potential lover with some cynicism. Really, I think it makes sense for everyone to be critical of a potential lover, because they clearly have a vested interest in misrepresenting themselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

This! Although there are really problematic cases, as in the case of undercover police who sleep with activists

But this woman's definition of rape is limited to understanding force as being exclusively physical, when in actual fact it isn't.

[Decolonize The Left]

Here's my analogy on consent for all to think about:

I walk up to you and have two opaque boxes. One is labeled "apples" and one is labeled "oranges." I say to you "would you like some free and delicious apples or oranges?" You say "Yes! I absolutely LOVE free fresh oranges!" You then plunge your hand into the box labeled "oranges" only to discover that it's full of bees!

So, did you consent to grabbing a handful of bees? No, of course not. You consented to a handful of free fresh oranges but I lied and deceived you. And this is a perfect example of how you cannot consent to something for which you do not have all the information.

[Decolonize The Left]

But this woman's definition of rape is limited to understanding force as being exclusively physical, when in actual fact it isn't.

No, she acknowledges well that force can be non-physical - such as a threat. But even so, the act of sex is not consensual because she is not consenting to sex, the threat of violence is forcing her to consent (hence it is not willful).

So, to speak on her behalf, rape involves a sexual act which is not willfully consented to by one party and forced upon them by another. But if that person willfully consents and learns later that the other had lied, then this is not rape as consent was still present at the time of the act.

[Paul Pott]

If I mug someone I am stealing. If I buy a rare item worth $500 for $5 at a yardsale because the seller is gullible or didn't understand how valuable it was, I'm not stealing, even if I'm technically taking advantage of them in a way.

Rape works the same way. If the person consents, is not impaired, no leverage is involved (like age differences), and saying "no" doesn't have negative consequences for the victim, then it can't be called rape.

No means no, and yes means yes, everything else being equal.

[The Feral Underclass]

If I mug someone I am stealing. If I buy a rare item worth $500 for $5 at a yardsale because the seller is gullible or didn't understand how valuable it was, I'm not stealing, even if I'm technically taking advantage of them in a way.

Rape works the same way. If the person consents, is not impaired, no leverage is involved (like age differences), and saying "no" doesn't have negative consequences for the victim, then it can't be called rape.

No means no, and yes means yes, everything else being equal.

But yes doesn't mean yes if you're saying yes to a situation that doesn't exist.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, she acknowledges well that force can be non-physical - such as a threat. But even so, the act of sex is not consensual because she is not consenting to sex, the threat of violence is forcing her to consent (hence it is not willful).

So, to speak on her behalf, rape involves a sexual act which is not willfully consented to by one party and forced upon them by another. But if that person willfully consents and learns later that the other had lied, then this is not rape as consent was still present at the time of the act.

But just saying yes doesn't equal consent. Consent wasn't present at the time of the act.

[Decolonize The Left]

But just saying yes doesn't equal consent. Consent wasn't present at the time of the act.

Oh, I understand and in many ways I agree with you. I was merely clarifying her position as I brought it into the equation in the first place. See my analogy a couple posts up for why I'm in your corner.

[Paul Pott]

But yes doesn't mean yes if you're saying yes to a situation that doesn't exist.

Well then not all deception in the matter of sex is rape.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well then not all deception in the matter of sex is rape.

Perhaps not in the "matter of sex" but certainly in order to get it from someone.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, I understand and in many ways I agree with you. I was merely clarifying her position as I brought it into the equation in the first place. See my analogy a couple posts up for why I'm in your corner.

Gotchya.

[Luís Henrique]

Blackmailing someone into sleeping with you is most definitely rape.

Evidently, or else it is a crime by itself, carrying similar penalties as rape.


I don't think people should be killed for raping people. I am an advocate of restorative justice in any case and oppose the death penalty for social crimes. If you are looking for me to provide a positive out come for classifying such behaviour as rape then I can't give you one.

Well, I am against the death penalty too. But I am - and hope so are you - in favour of self-defence as an exception to murder in cases of violent crimes. In order words, I don't think someone who kills another who is trying to kill him or her is a murderer; I also don't think that a person that kills a rapist during or immediately after being raped is a murderer either.


There is nothing positive about this situation. There is nothing to be "gained" by it. It is all horrible and tragic. It is, however, a necessary step to take if we are to undermine the culture of rape and prevent these otherwise "grey areas" being used as justifications for perpetuating sexual abuse.

I don't think so. On the contrary, I think this legitimises the culture of rape, makes the police more apologetical of rape, increases cynicism about actual cases of rape, opens a whole avenue to mras to uphold violence against women as defence against "rape", etc.


But John was also raped, insofar as he was forced to give his consent through Mary's deception.

But you are right, it is not comparable to the horror of having your consent taken by physical force.

So, it is the same thing, except it is different?


No, it's probably pointless to file such a complaint with the police, and I wouldn't advocate that anyway as the bourgeois legal system is fundamentally at odds with creating a restorative process.

But if a woman is violently raped I you aren't against her going to the police and filing a complaint, I hope?


In a post-revolutionary system there would definitely need to be some sort of mediation. Just writing a note or waking them up and confronting them isn't dealing with the situation or addressing the fundamental principle that Mary took consent from John by force.

The community should intervene if John feels that should happen and Mary should be rebuked by society, and told she must change her behaviour.

In a post-revolutionary society I hope we still understand that Mary's act was immoral and reprehensible, and that there is little else to do about it. Yeah, perhaps everybody telling her that that was a no-no and that she should not do it again. In a post-revolutionary society I don't think however that someone who does something like forcing another person into sex through violence or threat thereof can be simply told it is a no-no and that their behaviour should change.


Incidentally, an Israeli Jewish woman achieved a rape conviction against an Palestinian man because he told her she was Jewish. I suspect there were probably other motives involved. (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew))

So basically she managed to convict him by publicly confessing to be a racist, and this is a victory against rape culture?


But I have never had an issue with making those distinctions, providing that they are both characterised as rape.

So what is so marvelous about labeling both with the same word?

Luís Henrique

[MarxArchist]

No, she acknowledges well that force can be non-physical - such as a threat. But even so, the act of sex is not consensual because she is not consenting to sex, the threat of violence is forcing her to consent (hence it is not willful).

So, to speak on her behalf, rape involves a sexual act which is not willfully consented to by one party and forced upon them by another. But if that person willfully consents and learns later that the other had lied, then this is not rape as consent was still present at the time of the act.

And what if she actually enjoyed the sex? She then enjoyed being raped by this definition of rape (a definition which is quite common within some feminist communities). The trans cases and the specific case where a Jewish women filed rape charges against an Arab are also of interest.


Then we have this situation:

DfmXodInxTU

If the definition of rape as defined by TAT and other posters were fully embraced we would have to eradicate the world of lies. Our social lives would look like the above video. Entire "lie detector" departments would have to be created to decipher truth from fiction. Motivations would have to be analyzed. Insanely authoritarian structures erected to bring 'justice' to the rapists, both men and women. Maybe the ones that already exist would suffice?

Anyhow the examples given here http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/07/22/on-rape-by-deception/ I agree with. A twin brother posing as his twin and having sex with the brothers girlfriend. That's rape. That I can see as clear "trickery". Also the other case in Israel where a man abused his position of authority or power over the woman. That is indeed rape, as the women needed the benefits to survive. Rape. Just as it would be rape if a police officer abused his authority for sex. That's rape. What I have a problem with (and trust me I don't like pick up artists either) is when that "pick up artist" culture is framed as rape. It's tacky, it's cheesy, it's fake, grimy and sleazy but women, I would like to think, have the capability to detect such bullshit. I don't see women as innocent little children who need to be protected from the pedophile who's offering candy in a van.

[Paul Pott]

Perhaps not in the "matter of sex" but certainly in order to get it from someone.

Deception can be rape, but only in the same sense that a Ponzi scheme is theft. To go back to my yardsale example, if I lie to you, the seller, in order to convince you to sell something at a lower price than it's worth, that isn't theft, even though it's manipulation.

If a lie contributes to the act of sex happening, that's manipulation, but not rape. If someone deceives a victim into a sex act when that was not what they consented to, that's rape. But every example given in this thread has involved consent to sex.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What is statutory rape then? Not rape? Or is it less bad rape than beating up a woman and forcing yourself inside her while she struggles?


It is rape. I don't differentiate between kinds of "rape" in the sense that it is "less wrong" to use a rufie or manipulate a minor than commit violent assault.



Obviously she is a racist and obviously so is the Israeli state and the reason this man went to prison is because he is Palestinian, but nevertheless, he knew he was impeding her right to offer consent. He knew she would not sleep with him if he didn't tell her he was Jewish and therefore used deception to force her to consent -- it was rape.I disagree - she consented to have sex with someone she thought was an Israeli, but her rational ability to question his claim was in no way impeded. It seems that the point with rape is that the victim has no agency in choosing the sexual act, whereas acting under false premises generally speaking is a case where the agent is merely deceived, yet they maintain their agency even if in a diluted sense.

Anyways, I will try to keep this debate respectful, because this is a sensitive topic and I don't think anyone here is justifying manipulating someone into sex, and I can see that people's commitments on this topic are not unjustified. Someone can even see a sexual act as wrong, manipulative, even reactionary, and not call it "rape", and this is a legitimate discussion to have without accusing people of being rape apologists (or worse, rapists)


And what if she actually enjoyed the sex?

Its important to note that rape victims sometimes do gain some kind of physical "pleasure" from the act (which itself only increases their disgust at the act)

[Luís Henrique]

Well... I just discussed this whole issue with my ladyfriend while we were out walking. Her perspective, as a woman who is familiar with these issues, is that there's a big difference between deception/manipulation and rape. In the former, the person was a consenting adult who agreed to a sexual act willingly but on false pretenses. This is fucked up and shouldn't be accepted, but it isn't rape. In the latter a person did not agree to consensual sex but was forced to have it anyway. This is rape.

Congratulations to your ladyfriend. She is a sane person, and understands the difference between different things.


In other words, you can't look back at the act after the fact - which you consented to - and frame it otherwise.

Seems obvious; I don't understand why so many people have difficulty with this.


It was a good discussion. She did not have an answer for my question in regards to can someone actually consent to something when they don't know what they're consenting to. I believe that this is the crux of the issue.

I would say that if you understand that it is merely sex, with all its possible consequences, not some metaphysical bullshit, then you shouldn't care too much about the personal biography of the other person, obvious things like lying about STDs or AIDS, or even non-sexually transmitted diseases that can be transmitted by saliva or respiration. If you are fancying a long-term relationship when the other part is just for a one-night-stand, that is a problem, no doubt, and it is possible that one part is being exploitative by misleading the other, or even actively lying. But rape isn't about misunderstandings; it is about violence - even if only threatened or reasonably feared violence.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, I am against the death penalty too. But I am - and hope so are you - in favour of self-defence as an exception to murder in cases of violent crimes. In order words, I don't think someone who kills another who is trying to kill him or her is a murderer; I also don't think that a person that kills a rapist during or immediately after being raped is a murderer either.

Sure, and if you're asking me if I think rape by deception warrants the same self-defence response as someone who is in the act of physically raping you, then obviously I don't.

Why do I think this? Well, self-defence is something used in the course of an act occurring, not as an after the fact event. In the instance where the deception or manipulation was uncovered during intercourse, then the person would likely say stop, and if they didn't, then of course self-defence would be permissible.


I don't think so. On the contrary, I think this legitimises the culture of rape, makes the police more apologetical of rape, increases cynicism about actual cases of rape, opens a whole avenue to mras to uphold violence against women as defence against "rape", etc.

I am trying hard to understand your logic, but I am failing to do so. Perhaps you could explain more?

Rape is the act of sexually penetrating someone without their consent. If we agree that consent isn't being given if manipulation or deception are being employed, why then is it not rape? Furthermore, how does this recognition achieve these things above?

Just because the police are fucking idiots and people are cynical about rape doesn't mean that we shouldn't characterise sexual intercourse through deception and manipulation as rape.


So, it is the same thing, except it is different?

It seems we are talking at cross-purposes, which I was hoping this exchange would address.

Rape in which your consent is verbally denied and a person uses physical force to penetrate you regardless is not the same as a rape through deception and manipulation. These acts are different because they are not the same...

They are still, however, rape, as they were both situations in which a person penetrates you without consent being given.


But if a woman is violently raped I you aren't against her going to the police and filing a complaint, I hope?

It's largely pointless to file a report with the police when it comes to rape anyway, but of course I wouldn't be against it.


In a post-revolutionary society I hope we still understand that Mary's act was immoral and reprehensible, and that there is little else to do about it. Yeah, perhaps everybody telling her that that was a no-no and that she should not do it again. In a post-revolutionary society I don't think however that someone who does something like forcing another person into sex through violence or threat thereof can be simply told it is a no-no and that their behaviour should change.

Probably not, although I'm sure that would be part of the restorative process.


So basically she managed to convict him by publicly confessing to be a racist, and this is a victory against rape culture?

But the fact she is a racist has nothing to do with her consent. She is entitled to reject someone from entering her body based on her ignorant views if she wants to: It's her body.


So what is so marvelous about labeling both with the same word?

Marvellous? There's nothing marvellous about it.

[Luís Henrique]

IIf you want to explain what is unreasonable about this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2633200&postcount=101) and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2633202&postcount=102) post, then feel free.

They aren't unreasonable at all. They just don't address the issue. Yes, there is something like manipulation; yes, there is something like deception. None are nice or acceptable things. None, in and of themselves, characterise rape.


Except I have offered a clear criterion, pretty much repeatedly throughout this thread, you're just too lazy to read.

The problem is that your criterion, whether clear or not, is not a good one, and leads to a trivial vision of rape.

According to it, I have been raped once (at least, there were probably other occasions when I didn't notice it). What was that horrible event? Simple; I asked the young lady if we should use condoms, and she said something like "meh, don't bother, I'm taking the pills", and then, next date, told me she was pregnant and that we would have to marry, and confessed to lying about the pills. Rape, no doubt, according to your clear criterion. I suppose I can now go to support groups for victims of rape and troll them about how being cheated in such a way is tantamount to being repeatedly raped by your stepfather, or violently attacked in a dark alley, or etc.? Or that I could have gone to a police precinct and denounced that woman as a rapist? Don't you see how this trivialises the horrible experiences of people who have been actually raped?

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

I disagree - she consented to have sex with someone she thought was an Israeli, but her rational ability to question his claim was in no way impeded. It seems that the point with rape is that the victim has no agency in choosing the sexual act, whereas acting under false premises generally speaking is a case where the agent is merely deceived, yet they maintain their agency even if in a diluted sense.

But their agency isn't "diluted," it doesn't exist. Just saying yes to someone doesn't equal consent. Just believing that you are consenting doesn't mean you are consenting.

How can you give consent to a situation that does not exist? She gave her consent under the pretext that the person was Israeli. If she knew he was Palestinian, she would have denied it.

She wasn't consenting to the situation. She thought she was consenting to it, but she wasn't, because the situation she was saying yes to wasn't the situation she thought it was. The perceived situation was not the actual situation, and though she said yes under the perceived situation, if she was aware of the actual situation, she would not have given her consent. Since the actual situation is what the situation actually was and the perceived situation was not the situaton, ergo, her consent was not given.

I cannot fathom how you are unable to see this position. :confused:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Quibbling about the definition of rape misses the point: If we accept that consent is a) informed and b) contingent on specificities, it follows that a universal definition of rape is neither necessary nor possible. Rather, what might constitute rape in one case may not in another, but it's up to the survivor to define their experience.
Further, "lies" or "deceit" don't exist in a vacuum - they exist inextricable from dynamics of cisheteropatriachal capitalism. In other words, when some fuckface entitled dude lies to get in a woman's pants, we can't pull some liberal pseudo-impartial bullshit and ignore the social relations that surround the situation.
In other words: yeah, a whole lot of heterosexual sex, if not most, that happens in a society where male supramacist rape is not only normalized but celebrated is probably rape. Instead of being a defensive asshole, fucking confront that reality.

[Luís Henrique]

What is statutory rape then? Not rape? Or is it less bad rape than beating up a woman and forcing yourself inside her while she struggles?

Statutory rape is rape, period. Obviously if the rapist also beats up the child and forces himself into her, it is worse than if he tricks her into "consent". But then doing this to a child is also worse than doing it to an adult woman, so what is your doubt?


Obviously she is a racist and obviously so is the Israeli state and the reason this man went to prison is because he is Palestinian, but nevertheless, he knew he was impeding her right to offer consent. He knew she would not sleep with him if he didn't tell her he was Jewish and therefore used deception to force her to consent -- it was rape.

Except, of course, it wasn't. Probably not even under Israeli law. And she wasn't "forced" to consent. She was tricked into it. She could have asked for his ID card (they are outrageously different for Palestinians; that is an apartheid State). The lie didn't made it impossible for her to do so. She wasn't informed enough, but she didn't take the measures to inform herself.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

According to it, I have been raped once (at least, there were probably other occasions when I didn't notice it). What was that horrible event? Simple; I asked the young lady if we should use condoms, and she said something like "meh, don't bother, I'm taking the pills", and then, next date, told me she was pregnant and that we would have to marry, and confessed to lying about the pills. Rape, no doubt, according to your clear criterion.

Firstly, rape isn't defined by how horrible the experience is.

Secondly, I don't understand how you think that fits into "my" criterion? Presumably you would just have put on the condom had she told you she wasn't taking pills? She didn't use manipulation and deception to get you to have sex with her, she used manipulation and deception to get you not to wear a condom.

[Luís Henrique]

But this woman's definition of rape is limited to understanding force as being exclusively physical, when in actual fact it isn't.

No, her definition isn't limited to force as "physical force", ie, direct bodily violence. Here is what she says:


In the latter a person did not agree to consensual sex but was forced to have it anyway. This is rape.

Nothing about "physical force". A person can be forced by physical violence, by threats, by blackmail, by economic dependence, by hierarchy (parent/child, priest/faithful, teacher/pupil, guard/prisoner, employer/employee, official/soldier, etc). All of those are different from being tricked.

Luís Henrique

[MarxArchist]

They aren't unreasonable at all. They just don't address the issue. Yes, there is something like manipulation; yes, there is something like deception. None are nice or acceptable things. None, in and of themselves, characterise rape.



The problem is that your criterion, whether clear or not, is not a good one, and leads to a trivial vision of rape.

According to it, I have been raped once (at least, there were probably other occasions when I didn't notice it). What was that horrible event? Simple; I asked the young lady if we should use condoms, and she said something like "meh, don't bother, I'm taking the pills", and then, next date, told me she was pregnant and that we would have to marry, and confessed to lying about the pills. Rape, no doubt, according to your clear criterion. I suppose I can now go to support groups for victims of rape and troll them about how being cheated in such a way is tantamount to being repeatedly raped by your stepfather, or violently attacked in a dark alley, or etc.? Or that I could have gone to a police precinct and denounced that woman as a rapist? Don't you see how this trivializes the horrible experiences of people who have been actually raped?

Luís Henrique

But that's the problem here. They're saying we are simply minimizing rape. That you should feel the same as the person being repeatedly raped by their stepfather, or violently attacked in a dark alley, or drugged at a party, or coerced into sex by a police officer, or tricked into it by a twin, or etc and so on.

There's another definition of rape that's shoddy, in relationships some feminists are calling it rape if a person (in most all cases the man) "pressures" his partner to have sex. "C'mon babe, please...I'm horny". She initially says no. He huffs and puffs on the bed, sighs, rolls over on the bed and starts ignoring her. She says, "Fine, lets hurry up though because I have to be at work soon". A scenario like that is being frames as rape by some people. The "coercion", according to them, is found in the emotional realm. If she doesn't "give in" he will make himself emotionally unavailable. It goes on and on into even more absurd levels as this thread indicates (the topic of rape). Again, if the above scenario is rape I've been raped hundreds of times. My last partner wanted to have sex 3, sometimes 4 times a day. Besides not being able to physically have that much sex I wasn't always in the mood but compromised and had sex with her, usually, about once a day. Even then I wasn't totally into it each time. I did feel pressured and it was annoying but I didn't feel raped. Like Luís Henrique said I won't be attending support groups comparing my experience with actual rape victim's experience. That would be absurdly insensitive and would be trivializing their experience.

[Luís Henrique]

Here's my analogy on consent for all to think about:

I walk up to you and have two opaque boxes. One is labeled "apples" and one is labeled "oranges." I say to you "would you like some free and delicious apples or oranges?" You say "Yes! I absolutely LOVE free fresh oranges!" You then plunge your hand into the box labeled "oranges" only to discover that it's full of bees!

So, did you consent to grabbing a handful of bees? No, of course not. You consented to a handful of free fresh oranges but I lied and deceived you. And this is a perfect example of how you cannot consent to something for which you do not have all the information.

So a Jew is a delicious orange but a Palestinian is a swarm of bees?

Sorry, not an actual analogy.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Luis, you've just taken to repeating yourself. Clearly I don't agree with your positions and I've laid out my reasons for that.

[The Feral Underclass]

And she wasn't "forced" to consent. She was tricked into it.

Which I contend is force.


She could have asked for his ID card (they are outrageously different for Palestinians; that is an apartheid State). The lie didn't made it impossible for her to do so. She wasn't informed enough, but she didn't take the measures to inform herself.

So because she was trusting that someone was telling the truth in order for her to give informed consent, she deserved to be fucked by someone she didn't actually want to be fucked by? Or what, it's her own fault? Hmm, I wonder where we've heard that before.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But their agency isn't "diluted," it doesn't exist. Just saying yes to someone doesn't equal consent. Just believing that you are consenting doesn't mean you are consenting.

How can you give consent to a situation that does not exist? She gave her consent under the pretext that the person was Israeli. If she knew he was Palestinian, she would have denied it.

She wasn't consenting to the situation. She thought she was consenting to it, but she wasn't, because the situation she was saying yes to wasn't the situation she thought it was. The perceived situation was not the actual situation, and though she said yes under the perceived situation, if she was aware of the actual situation, she would not have given her consent. Since the actual situation is what the situation actually was and the perceived situation was not the situaton, ergo, her consent was not given.


There was nothing stopping her from questioning his claims to be Jewish, unlike in the case of a person forcefully raped or where a person's ability to reason is negated by being a minor, being incredibly drunk, being asleep or being the victim of a rufie.

It seems quite reasonable to say consent based on false premises are still consent insofar as people's credulity and caution is at question, and not an attempt to use power (physical, social or chemical) to actually take away their ability to consent in the moment. If a person sleeps with someone that they barely know, they are willingly taking the manipulator's word for granted when they could just as easily have questioned their claims.



I cannot fathom how you are unable to see this position. :confused:I can fathom your position, I just have a different understanding of the conditions of consent. In the case of the person operating under false premises, they still have their agency, it's just their agency is being manipulated.



So because she was trusting that someone was telling the truth in order for her to give informed consent, she deserved to be fucked by someone she didn't actually want to be fucked by? Or what, it's her own fault? Hmm, I wonder where we've heard that before.

I don't think that's a fair analogy. A woman has a right to walk down any street in a short skirt without harassment, and I think it's different from saying people should be cautious before believing what other people have to say uncritically.

[Paul Pott]

Rather, what might constitute rape in one case may not in another, but it's up to the survivor to define their experience.

No, it's not, it's either rape or it isn't, consent is given or it isn't.


Further, "lies" or "deceit" don't exist in a vacuum - they exist inextricable from dynamics of cisheteropatriachal capitalism. In other words, when some fuckface entitled dude lies to get in a woman's pants, we can't pull some liberal pseudo-impartial bullshit and ignore the social relations that surround the situation.

They don't, when rape is part of the equation.


In other words: yeah, a whole lot of heterosexual sex, if not most, that happens in a society where male supramacist rape is not only normalized but celebrated is probably rape. Instead of being a defensive asshole, fucking confront that reality.

I'm probably a rapist, then, I didn't inform her I couldn't financially support the possible child, otherwise she may not have consented. Also at one point that night I sorta posed as a fan of a team I actually hate, and that probably contributed to it. What else did I miss? :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

And what if she actually enjoyed the sex? She then enjoyed being raped by this definition of rape.

Which further shows how trivialising such definition of rape is. According to it, rape can be even enjoyable!

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

There was nothing stopping her from questioning his claims to be Jewish

There is also nothing stopping girls from not getting drunk, or not getting into a car with a stranger. What you're essentially saying is that she was responsible to ensure she wasn't being deceived in the same way as women are told it is their responsibility to dress appropriately. It's not the responsibility of the woman to ensure she is not being abused, it's the man's responsibility not to be an abuser!

It's just the same bullshit. You are feeding the same fucking culture rape monster. Why can you not see this? It is so frustrating to see you have these opinions.


It seems quite reasonable to say consent based on false premises are still consent insofar as people's credulity and caution is at question, and not an attempt to use power (physical, social or chemical) to actually take away their ability to consent in the moment. If a person sleeps with someone that they barely know, they are willingly taking the manipulator's word for granted when they could just as easily have questioned their claims.



I can fathom your position, I just have a different understanding of the conditions of consent. In the case of the person operating under false premises, they still have their agency, it's just their agency is being manipulated.

We disagree on the fundamentals. I think we should just leave it at that.

[MarxArchist]

Which I contend is force.



So because she was trusting that someone was telling the truth in order for her to give informed consent, she deserved to be fucked by someone she didn't actually want to be fucked by? Or what, it's her own fault? Hmm, I wonder where we've heard that before.

A neo nazi female meets a man online. He knows she racist but overlooks it for whatever lame reason and fails to mention he has native American ancestry but he looks white. They meet, have sex, form a relationship and have a child. The child comes out with brown skin. She's horrified. He then tells her he has a native American grandfather. She files rape charges and he is thrown into prison. This, in your view, is justifiable.

[The Feral Underclass]

This has been an interesting discussion and I thank everyone for participating, but I am no longer prepared to continue discussing these issues.

If any one wishes to reply to anything I have said, that's obviously fine, but I will not be responding. :)

[MarxArchist]

This has been an interesting discussion and I thank everyone for participating, but I am no longer prepared to continue discussing these issues.

If any one wishes to reply to anything I have said, that's obviously fine, but I will not be responding. :)

This would also be justifiable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo

Or at the least Gwen would be a rapist and it would be the same as a person/people killing the person who raped them.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, self-defence is something used in the course of an act occurring, not as an after the fact event. In the instance where the deception or manipulation was uncovered during intercourse, then the person would likely say stop, and if they didn't, then of course self-defence would be permissible.

So if a person kills her rapist immediately after rape (taking advantage, let's say, from the orgasm distracting the rapist) it is not self-defence and consequently no longer justifies the killing?

I don't think so. The difference is the difference between violence and deception: violence can be used repeatedly (the rapist can maintain his victim subdued through violence, and rape her again when he is physically able to), but deception can't (once John realises Mary is a transex, or the Jewish lady realises the man is a Palestinian, the jinx is over, and sex is not going to happen again).

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There is also nothing stopping girls from not getting drunk, or not getting into a car with a stranger. What you're essentially saying is that she was responsible to ensure she wasn't being deceived in the same way as women are told it is their responsibility to dress appropriately. It's not the responsibility of the woman to ensure she is not being abused, it's the man's responsibility not to be an abuser!

It's just the same bullshit. You are feeding the same fucking culture rape monster. Why can you not see this? It is so frustrating to see you have these opinions.


I don't think it's the same, because people don't get drunk with the objective of having sex, or get into the car with a stranger for the same reason. The point is that getting drunk or rufied actually takes away one's critical reasoning. I agree in those cases it is not the responsibility of the abused, but precisely because their critical reasoning is unable to come to play. I don't see the same thing happening with everyday dishonesty, and I don't think it's "blaming the victim" in the same way.

I can understand your frustration with this debate, and I appreciate your passion. If there was something which I saw as rape and another person was denying it I would be similarly passionate. I respect your views, and I find it sleazy and gross to manipulate people as it has been described. I just don't want to conflate forcefully negating someone's critical faculty with misleading someone's critical faculty.


We disagree on the fundamentals. I think we should just leave it at that.If it's any consolation, I think that manipulating people for sex especially when there is a power differential is a case of domination and exploitation which should be opposed whether or not we call it rape.

[Blake's Baby]

If one person is under-age but lies to the other of-age person to 'trick' them into having sex, then is it rape of the underage person (as legally they can't give informed consent), or is it rape of the older person (as their consent was based on deception)?

Or have both those people raped each other?

[Vanguard1917]

It seems to me that many responses on this thread use the term "rape" very, very loosely, in order to condemn behaviour they find morally unacceptable, and that these responses obscure the relation between rape and patriarchy as systematic violence against women by men.

And in the process rape is belittled beyond recognition. The experience of a man being lied to by a woman is compared to the experience of, say, an adolescent girl forced into sex by an abusive relative, or a woman attacked late at night by a gang of rapists.

Whether they realise it or not, the moralists in this thread are inspired by the kind of view of sex upheld by clerics of the church. They share a view of sex as inherently dangerous and to be practised according to a set of specific codes and expectations. It must be fully 'honest' and 'pure' or it must not happen at all. According to this warped view, a woman who bends the truth to a man she fancies and gets him into bed, has committed the same crime as a man who forces himself on to a woman.

As i said earlier, the majority of people in society do not uphold such strict moral codes. The man or woman who has recreational sex with the opposite (or same) sex is not expecting an angel or a perfect gentleman/lady. They are likely to have a limited expectation of the person they are with, not the ideal that the sexual purists here seem to require as a prerequisite for intercourse.

What the moralists are really against is sex as recreation - something which, in the real world, tends to entail varying degrees of dishonesty. Just like the bourgeois moralist, they want sex to be only honourable, upright and righteous.

[human strike]

And in the process rape is belittled beyond recognition. The experience of a man being lied to by a woman is compared to the experience of, say, an adolescent girl forced into sex by an abusive relative, or a woman attacked late at night by a gang of rapists.

Whether they realise it or not, the moralists in this thread are inspired by the kind of view of sex upheld by clerics of the church. They share a view of sex as inherently dangerous and to be practised according to a set of specific codes and expectations. It must be fully 'honest' and 'pure' or it must not happen at all. According to this warped view, a woman who bends the truth to a man she fancies and gets him into bed, has committed the same crime as a man who forces himself on to a woman.

As i said earlier, the majority of people in society do not uphold such strict moral codes. The man or woman who has recreational sex with the opposite (or same) sex is not expecting an angel or a perfect gentleman/lady. They are likely to have a limited expectation of the person they are with, not the ideal that the sexual purists here seem to require as a prerequisite for intercourse.

What the moralists are really against is sex as recreation - something which, in the real world, tends to entail varying degrees of dishonesty. Just like the bourgeois moralist, they want sex to be only honourable, upright and righteous.

Sure. We hate rape because we hate sex. Right.

[Vanguard1917]

Sure. We hate rape because we hate sex. Right.

If you define rape as sex sans complete honesty, then, yes, you hate the bulk of sexual intercourse that takes place in modern society - just like the religious sermoniser.

[human strike]

If you define rape as sex sans complete honesty, then, yes, you hate the bulk of sexual intercourse that takes place in modern society - just like the religious sermoniser.

I don't care about the "bulk of sexual intercourse that takes place", I care about informed consent.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't care about the "bulk of sexual intercourse that takes place", I care about informed consent.

Which, according to your definition of the term, almost every woman and man has at one point or other disregarded.

[human strike]

Which, according to your definition of the term, almost every woman and man has at one point or other disregarded.

I believe someone already said this, but "welcome to patriarchy." Rape is normal. Tragic, but normal. And we have to recognise it as such before we can even begin to properly deal with the issue.

[blake 3:17]

I think it is really really fucked up to conflate slightly shitty lack of communications or low level piggishness with sexual assault, harrassment, and abuse.

There's something worthwhile in the 'rape culture' idea -- looking at the ideology and practices which legitimize sexual violence, but to equate some token participation in that -- listening to a song, looking at someone with lustful eyes -- with stalking, abuse, and rape is total garbage.

I've been sexually assaulted as a child and adult. I've also sucked cock and eaten pussy I didn't feel like doing at the time. They were not rapes -- they were not assaults. It should be fine or OK to talk about shitty sex including stuff where consent wasn't 100% or totally OK. And also OK to talk about being raped without being stigmatized.

Making it all the same turns someone whose condom slips off or has looked at porn exactly the same as someone who spreads STDs deliberately or hides in closets or holds knives to throats or will make a person unemployed or homeless for refusing sex. That's nonsense.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I've been sexually assaulted as a child and adult. I've also sucked cock and eaten pussy I didn't feel like doing at the time. They were not rapes -- they were not assaults. It should be fine or OK to talk about shitty sex including stuff where consent wasn't 100% or totally OK. And also OK to talk about being raped without being stigmatized.

I think that this is really valid - but that it's really up to the person who has had the experience to define this stuff for themselves. I think that there is lots of "shitty sex stuff" that isn't rape, but that there's no hard fast rule one can apply to say whether or not it is.


Making it all the same turns someone whose condom slips off or has looked at porn exactly the same as someone who spreads STDs deliberately or hides in closets or holds knives to throats or will make a person unemployed or homeless for refusing sex. That's nonsense.

I agree - but I don't think anyone has suggested anything quite that ridiculous. There's a pretty huge area between those things though - as indicated by the other part of your post (eg. abuse, harassment, assault). The line between those things and rape has to be drawn by the person experiencing them.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think that this is really valid - but that it's really up to the person who has had the experience to define this stuff for themselves. I think that there is lots of "shitty sex stuff" that isn't rape, but that there's no hard fast rule one can apply to say whether or not it is.



I agree - but I don't think anyone has suggested anything quite that ridiculous. There's a pretty huge area between those things though - as indicated by the other part of your post (eg. abuse, harassment, assault). The line between those things and rape has to be drawn by the person experiencing them.

Except we know many victims of rape are in denial about their attacks and don't acknowledge the the trauma. In that case, it's not up to the victim. This is a particular problem for child victims who are manipulated into thinking that the act was something normal and should remain hidden from the public.

Is an act really rape if the accused, in all good faith, committed a sexual act with what a reasonable person would have justifiably seen as acceptable consent? If they were a drunk/drugged person being manipulated by a sober person, rufied, asleep, a minor, threatened with force or politically/economically/socially victimized, there was no such ability to consent in the moment and that's what makes all of those rape.

[Quail]

I think it is really really fucked up to conflate slightly shitty lack of communications or low level piggishness with sexual assault, harrassment, and abuse.

There's something worthwhile in the 'rape culture' idea -- looking at the ideology and practices which legitimize sexual violence, but to equate some token participation in that -- listening to a song, looking at someone with lustful eyes -- with stalking, abuse, and rape is total garbage.
I don't think that anyone is equating listening to a song or looking at someone with lustful eyes to stalking, abuse and rape. Those are obviously not the same. The point people are trying to make is that coercion doesn't always have to be physical, but that doesn't mean that every tiny lie or omission is coercion. Obviously some common sense is required, and really it should be up to the victim to decide if they felt coerced. I really don't understand why every time this discussion comes up, some people seem to lose all common sense and ability to treat each case individually. I don't think you can make a blanket statement that all lies, etc, are coercion, but certainly lies and manipulation can be used to coerce people into sex.


I've been sexually assaulted as a child and adult. I've also sucked cock and eaten pussy I didn't feel like doing at the time. They were not rapes -- they were not assaults. It should be fine or OK to talk about shitty sex including stuff where consent wasn't 100% or totally OK. And also OK to talk about being raped without being stigmatized.
I think we can also sensibly draw a line between, for example, having sex with a partner because you want to make them happy despite not being really in the mood, and having sex with a partner because they told you they would leave you if you didn't. The former is okay because you gave consent, but the latter is abuse because your ability to give consent was compromised by the threat (even though there was no violence involved).


Making it all the same turns someone whose condom slips off or has looked at porn exactly the same as someone who spreads STDs deliberately or hides in closets or holds knives to throats or will make a person unemployed or homeless for refusing sex. That's nonsense.
First of all, someone whose condom slips off has done nothing wrong (unless they were aware of the fact and carried on anyway, in which case they've put their partner at risk, especially if their partner is female, which is not okay). Condoms can and do fail. I'm not sure what looking at porn has to do with anything either. Nobody is equating either of those things to abuse.

[Vanguard1917]

I believe someone already said this, but "welcome to patriarchy." Rape is normal. Tragic, but normal. And we have to recognise it as such before we can even begin to properly deal with the issue.

And as i said to them in response, such 'rape' has nothing to do with 'patriarchy' if women can be just as guilty of 'raping' (i.e. being dishonest in a sexual relationship) as men.

[Luís Henrique]

Sure. We hate rape because we hate sex. Right.

That may be not how you think, but it is how you are coming across.

The kind of "perfect consent" you are demanding is completely impossible in a world where recreative, spontaneous sex is an option. Indeed, the degree of disclosure about one's self that you seem to be requiring to make sexual consent valid... very much resembles a formal contract, with clauses and signatures, witnesses and registar. We have tried something like that, and it has miserably failed, remember? We used to call that "marriage".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I believe someone already said this, but "welcome to patriarchy." Rape is normal. Tragic, but normal. And we have to recognise it as such before we can even begin to properly deal with the issue.

Nope.

"Rape" is normal (and is not going to be abnormal again, ever), if by "rape" you mean consensual sexual relations where there is not absolutely perfect information. That is not patriarchy, much on the contrary. It is patriarchal marriage that relies on "perfect information" ("is she virgin?" "are you able to provide for a family?"), and the unavailability of perfect information being the rule, only strict restrictions to sexual liberty can ensure that every sexual relationship fulfills your unrealistic standards.

If, on the other hand, we stick to a sane definition of "rape" - that rape is sexual submission attained by violence (physical or moral) or threats thereof - then rape is not normal at all.

Luís Henrique

[human strike]

That may be not how you think, but it is how you are coming across.

The kind of "perfect consent" you are demanding is completely impossible in a world where recreative, spontaneous sex is an option. Indeed, the degree of disclosure about one's self that you seem to be requiring to make sexual consent valid... very much resembles a formal contract, with clauses and signatures, witnesses and registar. We have tried something like that, and it has miserably failed, remember? We used to call that "marriage".

Luís Henrique

Please, tell me more about my kind of "perfect consent" and "unrealistic standards," because the only case or example I have discussed is this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/sexual-behaviour-undercover-police

There's a lot of strawman going on in this thread...

[MarxArchist]

And in the process rape is belittled beyond recognition. The experience of a man being lied to by a woman is compared to the experience of, say, an adolescent girl forced into sex by an abusive relative, or a woman attacked late at night by a gang of rapists.

Whether they realise it or not, the moralists in this thread are inspired by the kind of view of sex upheld by clerics of the church. They share a view of sex as inherently dangerous and to be practised according to a set of specific codes and expectations. It must be fully 'honest' and 'pure' or it must not happen at all. According to this warped view, a woman who bends the truth to a man she fancies and gets him into bed, has committed the same crime as a man who forces himself on to a woman.

As i said earlier, the majority of people in society do not uphold such strict moral codes. The man or woman who has recreational sex with the opposite (or same) sex is not expecting an angel or a perfect gentleman/lady. They are likely to have a limited expectation of the person they are with, not the ideal that the sexual purists here seem to require as a prerequisite for intercourse.

What the moralists are really against is sex as recreation - something which, in the real world, tends to entail varying degrees of dishonesty. Just like the bourgeois moralist, they want sex to be only honourable, upright and righteous.

Most questionable theories on rape largely from from sex negative second wave radical feminism. Welcome to the "sex wars".

[MarxArchist]

I believe someone already said this, but "welcome to patriarchy." Rape is normal. Tragic, but normal. And we have to recognise it as such before we can even begin to properly deal with the issue.
Nonsense. Wrap the banner of patriarchy around your theories on rape and they automatically become legitimized in all too many peoples eyes. I think it's tacky and besides trivializing rape you're trivializing patriarchy into a meaningless buzz word. According to second wave sex negative theories rape is everywhere at all times. Even in 'consensual' sex because the patriarchy makes consensual sex nearly impossible unless the man is well versed and putting sex negative second wave radical feminist theory into practice. Starting from that foundation more and more questionable theories surrounding rape are constructed in the framework of the patriarchy. This is partly why some second wave sex negative radical feminists advocate separatism, abstinence from sex or lesbianism. Others simply perpetually complain and naturally veer away from relationships with men eventually due to accepting the entirety of the theories surrounding patriarchy. Some end up rejecting second wave sex negative radical feminism for a more, lets say, sane set of theories. Yes, I think second wave sex negative radical feminism is insane. I said it.

[Craig_J]

Only noticed this thread, I think TheAnarchistTension raises some good points, but at the same time I do think it is to hard to define lieing to someone to have sex with them as outright rape.

For example, if I was a person with low self esteem and I got talking to a girl, but lied about my job or something else as I felt my true job or what ever else is unimpressive, and I then go on to have sex with said girl, have I raped her?

It's way to difficult to apply.

[Beeth]

This thread is becoming more and more Catholic - and less and less leftist. there is too much moralism/emotionalism and very little logic. The pope would be proud.

[blake 3:17]

Agreed.

[blake 3:17]

Shit gets me so mad. Been dealing a scum abuser in the last while and got a real twitchy foot and fist. Will respond when more chill.

I was going to respond earlier, and was thinking about it, and some creeps cat called women from their trucks. Fuckers. The women were cool -- one of them had a fine and loud "Fuck you" to the shits.

[#FF0000]

I think TAT and co. are making some good points and people are kind of misunderstanding them. I don't think we're talking about situations where people just try to present their "best side" to impress someone, or even lies about, maybe, their job or something like that.

But that isn't necessarily what we're talking about. I think a scenario that would be closer to what we're talking about is if someone lies to the point where they practically create a new identity to get someone to sleep with them. Telling someone that you're a fabulously wealthy investment banker with an interest in a serious relationship and promising vacations in the south of France is worlds apart from telling someone you're a maintenance technician instead of saying "janitor".

I think people in this thread are taking an all-or-nothing perspective on it. No, telling someone a lie at any point about anything doesn't necessarily make someone a rapist. And yeah, knowingly and actively deceiving someone to have sex with you is most certainly rape.

[MarxArchist]

I think TAT and co. are making some good points and people are kind of misunderstanding them. I don't think we're talking about situations where people just try to present their "best side" to impress someone, or even lies about, maybe, their job or something like that.

But that isn't necessarily what we're talking about. I think a scenario that would be closer to what we're talking about is if someone lies to the point where they practically create a new identity to get someone to sleep with them. Telling someone that you're a fabulously wealthy investment banker with an interest in a serious relationship and promising vacations in the south of France is worlds apart from telling someone you're a maintenance technician instead of saying "janitor".

I think people in this thread are taking an all-or-nothing perspective on it. No, telling someone a lie at any point about anything doesn't necessarily make someone a rapist. And yeah, knowingly and actively deceiving someone to have sex with you is most certainly rape.

If a person wants to sleep with some rich person just because they're rich and it turns out the rich person is really a janitor I'd say both of them are being deceptive. One person only wanted sex and the other person was only interested in the money. So that scenario they both raped each other?

Can you come up with, lets say, at least 5 examples where a person "tricks" another person into having sex with them? Could you yourself be "tricked" into having sex? One example I could come up with was the case where a woman's partner had a twin brother and the twin indeed tricked her into having sex with him. That's clearly rape. The though of women being "tricked" into sex as some normal everyday average occurrence paints women in the same light as a naive child who needs to be protected by laws and people who know better. The examples have even been used comparing the "tricksater" to a man in a van promising a child candy. I don't see women in that light.

What this is at the end of the day is an attack on "pick up artist" culture. Trying to frame them as rapists.

[#FF0000]

If a person wants to sleep with some rich person just because they're rich and it turns out the rich person is really a janitor I'd say both of them are being deceptive. One person only wanted sex and the other person was only interested in the money. So that scenario they both raped each other?

That isn't the example I gave (maybe I wasn't clear). The idea is the one person wants a serious relationship with a wealthy/financially stable person. The other just wants sex and consciously presents himself/herself as a wealthy person looking for a serious relationship to have sex with that person. That is certainly rape.

As for your example, no, they wouldn't have "raped each other". The one lying about being wealthy wants sex -- whether or not the other wants his money or whatever is totally immaterial.

They're both terrible human beings, though.


Can you come up with, lets say, at least 5 examples where a person "tricks" another person into having sex with them? Could you yourself be "tricked" into having sex? One example I could come up with was the case where a woman's partner had a twin brother and the twin indeed tricked her into having sex with him. That's clearly rape.

Why five? Every example would be variation on that theme. If you accept one example of rape by deception as valid, then you accept that rape by deception is a valid thing, and we just disagree one what falls under "rape by deception".


The though of women being "tricked" into sex as some normal everyday average occurrence paints women in the same light as a naive child who needs to be protected by laws and people who know better. The examples have even been used comparing the "tricksater" to a man in a van promising a child candy. I don't see women in that light.

I never said that it's specifically men tricking women, though. I think this angle is just dishonest misdirection, trying to frame the people you disagree with as people who deny the agency of women.


What this is at the end of the day is an attack on "pick up artist" culture. Trying to frame them as rapists.

Oh, well they totally are, but I feel like that's another discussion entirely.

[MarxArchist]

They're both terrible human beings, though.


Agreed.


Why five?

Because I don't think you can say "anyone who lies to get sex or manipulates a person is a rapist". There's so many ways to go with that statement, as this thread has shown, a lot of examples are necessary.




I never said that it's specifically men tricking women, though. I think this angle is just dishonest misdirection, trying to frame the people you disagree with as people who deny the agency of women.

That's exactly whats being done. In my view at least.




Oh, well they totally are, but I feel like that's another discussion entirely.

Ya, they creep me out, are completely objectifying women and are usually only interested in sex but I don't think if a woman buys into their corny lines it's rape. Again, denying agency. Pick up artists are predatory, like traveling salespeople or telemarketers going door to door/calling with some sub-par product the sales person talks up. The people they're trying to sell the product to don't have to buy it. They're the most obvious of the lying/manipulating game. The thing is, at the end of the day on some level every human being does this if not consciously then subconsciously (usually but not limited to men and women with low self esteem). Not only do we bullshit other people we bullshit ourselves. There's no such thing as 100% honestly. There's no such thing as ZERO manipulation in social relationships.


Now the examples of an undercover police officer creating an entirely new fake identity and sleeping with women to gain information or to build a "cover" - that's rape in my view. So is the twin tricking the person into sex. The thing is, lying and manipulation is a broad category taken to it's logical conclusion all of us are rapists. Men and women. At what point is the line drawn? Thats my essential question. That's why many many examples are needed.

[#FF0000]

That's exactly whats being done. In my view at least.

Lying about birth control from either party would constitute rape, imo.


Ya, they creep me out, are completely objectifying women and are usually only interested in sex but I don't think if a woman buys into their corny lines it's rape. Again, denying agency.

I was kind of joking -- as a lot of their nonsense straddles the line between "just creepy" and "assault". But a lot of their strategies are absolutely predatory and intended to break someone down to the point that they'll say "yes". That's abusive, to put it mildly, and I don't think it'd be a stretch at all to call something like that "rape".

[MarxArchist]

Lying about birth control from either party would constitute rape, imo.



I was kind of joking -- as a lot of their nonsense straddles the line between "just creepy" and "assault". But a lot of their strategies are absolutely predatory and intended to break someone down to the point that they'll say "yes". That's abusive, to put it mildly, and I don't think it'd be a stretch at all to call something like that "rape".
I'm of the opinion "pick up artists", given their absolute fixation on sex/objectification, would be more of a threat as far as the potential for rape is concerned but the corny/cheesy idiocy that is pick up artist culture itself isn't rape in my opinion. It's a form of harassment, harassment that should be frowned upon by all but labeling them rapists off the bat takes away from women's agency. The "gynecologist" in the article below is a rapist. Again, the twin is a rapist but I'll ask the question again where is the line drawn?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38430181/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

When we are talking about 'lying' to get sex......are we talking about a scenario where....say.....a guy convinced some random girl he's a record producer and that he'll get her signed if she sleeps with him?

If the girl consents to sleep with him on that alone, I wouldn't quite call that 'rape' proper. It definitely makes the guy a huge asshole, a dirtbag even, but not exactly a rapist.


It becomes rape when one begins to put on pressure. Emotional and psychological, even physical manipulation. At that point it starts to become rape. Consent and the lack thereof is the primary factor in rape, and consent cannot be given under duress. At that point its an act of aggression.



Of course, my opinion might not matter as much since I've never had sex.

....I've heard it's nice, though.:crying:

[#FF0000]

It becomes rape when one begins to put on pressure. Emotional and psychological, even physical manipulation. At that point it starts to become rape. Consent and the lack thereof is the primary factor in rape, and consent cannot be given under duress. At that point its an act of aggression.

Consent can't be given with totally false information either, though.

[MarxArchist]

Consent can't be given with totally false information either, though.

Whats the difference between "totally" false information and just false information? Where is the line drawn? Is the undercover cop who creates sexual relationships with women in order to establish an identity/gain info the same as the average person who, lets say, employes what writers would call "artistic license" to their lives? Like the fisherman who catches a 4 pound fish but when he tells the story the fish is a 7 pound fish.

[REV3R]

I read something interesting the other day that goes with lying to get sex as rape.

-A man tells girls that sex with him would prevent future stds and unwanted pregnancy. Do you not consider this rape?

-Or consider a culture where there is a strong belief in magic and such. A man goes there and says sex with him will keep the devil away. Do you not consider this rape?

[MarxArchist]

-A man tells girls that sex with him would prevent future stds and unwanted pregnancy. Do you not consider this rape?

No. If a woman told me sex with her would prevent future stds I'd laugh at her. If I believed her and had sex with her too bad for me. Even if I did believe sex with her would prevent future STD's I still wouldnt be compelled to have sex with her.


-Or consider a culture where there is a strong belief in magic and such. A man goes there and says sex with him will keep the devil away. Do you not consider this rape?

This one is interesting. The people stupid enough to completely throw themselves into religion, then atop of it follow some disturbed individual who claims to have direct contact with god are, well, brainwashed? I think if a normal person brainwashes people, lets say Jim Jones or David Koresh and convinces the men/women that god says they must have sex with him, ya, that's rape but the rape is founded on years of grooming. It takes an extraordinary amount of effort to get people on the level where they will believe such extraordinary claims. These sorts of bastards have convinced people to kill themselves. This is a level of lying/manipulation the average person doesn't employ.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoXlaJdYKkTkPsCYF143kop_ulOhW8m FdFSV3qk9gybiTwDtfC

Essentially if we were to see the average woman in that light we would have to think, as we would with the cult member, they are incapable of making rational decisions based on some severe lies/manipulation. Lies that the perpetrator may even believe themselves.

[Vanguard1917]

I think TAT and co. are making some good points and people are kind of misunderstanding them. I don't think we're talking about situations where people just try to present their "best side" to impress someone, or even lies about, maybe, their job or something like that.

I believe 'TAT and co.' agreed that adultery can constitute rape. So a woman can commit two rapes in one day if she has sex with her lover in the morning, has sex with her husband in the evening, and tells neither man the truth about the situation.

Do you not see the problems inherent in calling this woman a rapist (whatever else she may be)?


But that isn't necessarily what we're talking about. I think a scenario that would be closer to what we're talking about is if someone lies to the point where they practically create a new identity to get someone to sleep with them. Telling someone that you're a fabulously wealthy investment banker with an interest in a serious relationship and promising vacations in the south of France is worlds apart from telling someone you're a maintenance technician instead of saying "janitor".

That's not rape either. Rape is not sex without honesty - it is sex through violence or the threat of violence. It is the individual's responsibility to judge their prospective sexual partner, evaluate their character, suspect that he or she could be a liar, and make up their own mind as to whether or not they should have sex with them. As most sexually active people well realise...

[blake 3:17]

@VMC and Quail -- responding because you both responded thoughtfully. I think we're on a similar wavelength. Rather talk about it face to face.

Me: "Making it all the same turns someone whose condom slips off or has looked at porn exactly the same as someone who spreads STDs deliberately or hides in closets or holds knives to throats or will make a person unemployed or homeless for refusing sex. That's nonsense."

The reasons I brought up the slipping condom and porn was because I've read pretty recent stuff from feminist bloggers -- and then a lot of guys trying to score points-- who were saying that looking at porn or ever having been to a strip club was being part of rape culture. One of my dearest friends had someone take a condom off in the middle of a fuck fest. A guy who does that is scum and no different than any other oppressor.

My proudest day this year was getting an email from the YWCA Wheeling on behalf of Jane Doe of Steubenville for my teensy donation.

I dunno. Maybe been doing this too long. I have delivered proletarian/feminist justice to rapist shits, and usually it's a "shame and shun" strategy. And that works by describing whatever the issue is clearly and not making it anonymous. I just want sexual violence to end.

[#FF0000]

I believe 'TAT and co.' agreed that adultery can constitute rape

Yo, quote it then.


That's not rape either. Rape is not sex without honesty - it is sex through violence or the threat of violence.

No. Rape is sex without consent.

[#FF0000]

Whats the difference between "totally" false information and just false information? Where is the line drawn?

That's where the impasse is, isn't it.


Is the undercover cop who creates sexual relationships with women in order to establish an identity/gain info the same as the average person who, lets say, employes what writers would call "artistic license" to their lives? Like the fisherman who catches a 4 pound fish but when he tells the story the fish is a 7 pound fish.

The former, and probably not the latter.

I mean, when I meet someone I'm interested in, I definitely tell them about the cool things I do every so often, and not about the video games and arguing with other dorks on the internet.

[Luís Henrique]

Yo, quote it then.

When directly asked, TAT evaded the question, with a non-sequitur:


Two people don't get married just so they can have sex with each other. That would be a pretty extreme thing to do.

The issue, obviously, isn't whether people get married for the sole purpose to get sex with others. The issue is whether a person who omits their marital status to a prospective lover is a rapist. And while he doesn't cut it to the chase, he certainly furthers his position in a way that can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that he believes an adulterer is a rapist if he misinforms his partner about his marital status:


What we are talking about is taking sex from someone, i.e. entering into a situation for the sole purposes of you being able to penetrate them.

The above is, again, an evasion, because he goes back to an old patriarchal myth: that rape is necessarily penetration, and consequently can only be committed by men. It seems to follow that a man who lies to a woman saying that he is single in order to get laid is a rapist, but a woman who lies to a man (or to another woman, fwiw) in order to get laid isn't a rapist. Or perhaps she is, but only if she uses a dildo.

It was another poster whom when directly confronted with the question, answered it with an inequivocal positive:


Yes, that woman manipulated that man into having sex with her under flase pretenses.

So while TAT framed it in a way that looks like he thinks adultery is rape (but only when committed by men - and indeed only if it implies penetration; apparently the case is different if it only involves cunnilingus), The Douche certainly wrote explicitly that he considers adulterous women rapists in the case they hide their marital status from their lovers.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

I believe 'TAT and co.' agreed that adultery can constitute rape.

Nope.

[The Feral Underclass]

The issue, obviously, isn't whether people get married for the sole purpose to get sex with others. The issue is whether a person who omits their marital status to a prospective lover is a rapist. And while he doesn't cut it to the chase, he certainly furthers his position in a way that can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that he believes an adulterer is a rapist if he misinforms his partner about his marital status

You're misrepresenting your own words. You said:


let's suppose that a woman wants to marry a man. In order to achieve that, she lies to him that she has taken the pill, gets pregnant, and "coerces" the guy into marrying her, or at least into financially supporting her/

Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2632099&postcount=26)

I added the highlight to show that you are talking about marriage. Not sex, but marriage. Sexual intercourse and marriage are not the same thing -- you might think so, but they are not.

We are not supposing that a woman wants to have sexual intercourse with a man, and in order to achieve that she lies to him about taking pills. This is a story we later discover in this thread is about you, and the fact that you agreed not to wear a condom, a story that also does not relate to what I am talking about.

To clarify: None of what you are talking about relates to the views I have expressed in this thread. You are trying to construct an argument to prove your point that does not relate to what I am arguing against.


The above is, again, an evasion, because he goes back to an old patriarchal myth: that rape is necessarily penetration, and consequently can only be committed by men.

You're making an assumption about my views and you are wrong. Just because I use the word "penetration" doesn't mean that I am relating only to men, and you have no reason to think that.

It's also interesting that you're the one who continuously brings up the issue of legalities but fails to understand the legal definition for rape. I haven't read the statute that covers rape in Brazil, but in the UK rape is specifically defined by someone being penetrated with a penis (source (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape)).

There is, incidentally, a similar charge of sexual assault relating to being penetrated by anything (source (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/assault)), which I disagree with. Something you could have known had you bothered to ask me, rather that presume to know what I think.


So while TAT framed it in a way that looks like he thinks adultery is rape (but only when committed by men - and indeed only if it implies penetration; apparently the case is different if it only involves cunnilingus),

I do not think adultery is rape and I do not think rape can only be performed by men. This is a fantasy that you have constructed for the benefit of your argument.

Presumably you thought I wouldn't interject since I decided not to participate in this thread any longer, but seeing you so brazenly misrepresent what has been said is just too much for me not to comment on.

Stop being dishonest.

[Luís Henrique]

You're misrepresenting your own words. You said:

Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2632099&postcount=26)

I added the highlight to show that you are talking about marriage. Not sex, but marriage. Sexual intercourse and marriage are not the same thing -- you might think so, but they are not.

My example was evidently of a woman that lied to a man in order to get sex, and through getting sex, getting married. It is obvious that people don't get married just to have sex, but the point is the opposite - people having sex in order to get married.


We are not supposing that a woman wants to have sexual intercourse with a man, and in order to achieve that she lies to him about taking pills. This is a story we later discover in this thread is about you, and the fact that you agreed not to wear a condom, a story that also does not relate to what I am talking about.

Yeah, I trusted her, and I should not have. Apparently you are trying to make this trust look somewhat criminal.


You're making an assumption about my views and you are wrong. Just because I use the word "penetration" doesn't mean that I am relating only to men, and you have no reason to think that.

Your words are quite clear:


Rape is the act of sexually penetrating someone without their consent.


They are still, however, rape, as they were both situations in which a person penetrates you without consent being given.


What we are talking about is taking sex from someone, i.e. entering into a situation for the sole purposes of you being able to penetrate them.


It's also interesting that you're the one who continuously brings up the issue of legalities but fails to understand the legal definition for rape. I haven't read the statute that covers rape in Brazil, but in the UK rape is specifically defined by someone being penetrated with a penis (source (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape)).

So let's see the Brazilian Penal Code:


Art. 213. Constranger alguém, mediante violência ou grave ameaça, a ter conjunção carnal ou a praticar ou permitir que com ele se pratique outro ato libidinoso:

Translating,

To constrain someone, through violence or serious threat, to have sexual interaction or to allow the practice of another libidinous act

It makes no mention of men or women, and while it mentions penetration, it immediately adds, "or another libidinous act".

Yes, I know, there are penal codes elsewhere that still define rape as something that can only be practiced by a man, and in some cases, only by a man to a woman. Those are outdated laws, though, written before the changes in sexual mores in the late 20th century.


There is, incidentally, a similar charge of sexual assault relating to being penetrated by anything (source (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/assault)), which I disagree with. Something you could have known had you bothered to ask me, rather that presume to know what I think.

Well, it is not exactly like you haven't been talking about the subject in this thread, making indeed quite clear statements, that now apparently you are informing us that you disagree with. Good, those were mistaken positions, I am glad to see that you are correcting them.

I don't presume to know what you think, but I certainly read what you write, and I do take conclusions from that.


I do not think adultery is rape and I do not think rape can only be performed by men. This is a fantasy that you have constructed for the benefit of your argument.

Good to know. If a fantasy it is, it is a fantasy based on what you wrote here in this thread. Reread yourself and you will see how it is quite reasonable to arrive to such "fantasy" based on your own words.


Presumably you thought I wouldn't interject since I decided not to participate in this thread any longer, but seeing you so brazenly misrepresent what has been said is just too much for me not to comment on.

I really don't care whether you participate on this thread or not. I haven't misrepresented what you have written, as anyone can see by reading your posts, in which you very clearly equate rape with penetration. Again:


Rape is the act of sexually penetrating someone without their consent.


They are still, however, rape, as they were both situations in which a person penetrates you without consent being given.


What we are talking about is taking sex from someone, i.e. entering into a situation for the sole purposes of you being able to penetrate them.


Stop being dishonest.

After you.

I have really forgotten how dangerous it is to engage in conversation with you, given your tendency to try and frame other people's words as something nefarious, in order to play your restrict-and-ban silly games. Thanks for remembering me.

Luís Henrique

[MarxArchist]

That's where the impasse is, isn't it.

And that's where peoples shifty theories alienate millions of people and makes the left in general look bat shit insane. Because the line isn't drawn. One lie or any manipulative act must be the same as any other with no "hierarchy" of lies or manipulation just as there can't be a "hierarchy" of rape. Rape is indeed rape and lying/manipulation is lying/manipulating so at the end of the day we're pretty much all rapists. I'm going to go outside and look at the stars now while wondering what the hell or when the hell the left went bat shit insane.

[The Feral Underclass]

My example was evidently of a woman that lied to a man in order to get sex

That was no evident! Not at all! You were talking about marriage. No where did you mention sex. If you were talking about sexual intercourse, then say sexual intercourse, not marriage.


It is obvious that people don't get married just to have sex, but the point is the opposite - people having sex in order to get married.

Your example was stupid and it doesn't relate to my views. You might want it to, but it doesn't. My views relate exclusively to efforts made by individuals to to force others to engage in sexual intercourse. Not marriage, not about wearing a condom, not about telling someone they look pretty -- about sexual intercourse, or in other words, an act of penetration.


Yeah, I trusted her, and I should not have. Apparently you are trying to make this trust look somewhat criminal.

That's not my opinion! The fact that you didn't wear a condom because she told you she was taking pills does not relate to my views. It's not rape because you chose not to wear a condom. She didn't trick you into having sex, she tricked you into not wearing a condom. Had she been honest, you would have put the condom on, right? You didn't intend not to have sex with this woman, you simply intended to wear a condom, which you chose not to.


Your words are quite clear:

Where do I mention anything about penises...?


Yes, I know, there are penal codes elsewhere that still define rape as something that can only be practiced by a man, and in some cases, only by a man to a woman. Those are outdated laws, though, written before the changes in sexual mores in the late 20th century.

I am no defending it this view. I have stated clearly that I do not agree that rape is only rape if it is penetration with a penis, and there is no where in this thread that I have stated that.


Well, it is not exactly like you haven't been talking about the subject in this thread, making indeed quite clear statements, that now apparently you are informing us that you disagree with. Good, those were mistaken positions, I am glad to see that you are correcting them.

No, Luis. You have made presumptions about my views without me ever stating them. I have never, ever said that I think rape is exclusively about penetration with a penis. I just have not said that and it is not my opinion.


I don't presume to know what you think, but I certainly read what you write, and I do take conclusions from that.

Except you have presumed that because I used the word penetration this means that I think rape is exclusively about penetration with a penis. You have made that assumption.


Good to know. If a fantasy it is, it is a fantasy based on what you wrote here in this thread. Reread yourself and you will see how it is quite reasonable to arrive to such "fantasy" based on your own words.

Except I have never actually said those words...


I really don't care whether you participate on this thread or not. I haven't misrepresented what you have written, as anyone can see by reading your posts, in which you very clearly equate rape with penetration. Again:

But that doesn't mean that I think it is exclusively with a penis, Luis. I am not denying that I think rape is "with penetration," what I am objecting to is that I think it is exclusively about a penis. I have never stated that opinion and do not think it.

Sexual intercourse must involve an act of penetration, without an act of penetration, there is no sexual intercourse. That does not make it exclusively about a penis.


I have really forgotten how dangerous it is to engage in conversation with you, given your tendency to try and frame other people's words as something nefarious, in order to play your restrict-and-ban silly games. Thanks for remembering me.

Oh blah blah. You are being dishonest, whether you meant to be or not. You're ascribing views to me that I do not have.

Why don't you just stop doing that.

[Luís Henrique]

That's not my opinion! The fact that you didn't wear a condom because she told you she was taking pills does not relate to my views. It's not rape because you chose not to wear a condom. She didn't trick you into having sex, she tricked you into not wearing a condom. Had she been honest, you would have put the condom on, right? You didn't intend not to have sex with this woman, you simply intended to wear a condom, which you chose not to.

If I knew she was a liar - that she would make that exact kind of lies, to be precise - no, I would not have had sexual relations with her.


Where do I mention anything about penises...?

And where do I?


I am no defending it this view. I have stated clearly that I do not agree that rape is only rape if it is penetration with a penis, and there is no where in this thread that I have stated that.

No, Luis. You have made presumptions about my views without me ever stating them. I have never, ever said that I think rape is exclusively about penetration with a penis. I just have not said that and it is not my opinion.

Except you have presumed that because I used the word penetration this means that I think rape is exclusively about penetration with a penis. You have made that assumption.

Which seems a reasonable assumption. You have said that rape is necessarily penetration, and have not made any effort to make clear that you could be thinking about other kind of penetration.

Any way, we see that you don't consider other kinds of sexual acts committed through violence of threat of violence, to be "rape", if they do not involve penetration.


But that doesn't mean that I think it is exclusively with a penis, Luis. I am not denying that I think rape is "with penetration," what I am objecting to is that I think it is exclusively about a penis. I have never stated that opinion and do not think it.

Nor have I said that you think that rape necessarily involves a penis. Much on the contrary,


The above is, again, an evasion, because he goes back to an old patriarchal myth: that rape is necessarily penetration, and consequently can only be committed by men. It seems to follow that a man who lies to a woman saying that he is single in order to get laid is a rapist, but a woman who lies to a man (or to another woman, fwiw) in order to get laid isn't a rapist. Or perhaps she is, but only if she uses a dildo.


Sexual intercourse must involve an act of penetration, without an act of penetration, there is no sexual intercourse. That does not make it exclusively about a penis.

That is a curious definition. Then you believe that penetration with an object, or with fingers, constitute "sexual intercourse", but that cunnilingus doesn't?

I have seen the phrase used in a rigorous way, meaning sexual penetration of the vagina with a penis, and I have seen the phrase used in a lax way meaning any kind of sexual acts that do not necessarily involve penetration of any kind, such as tribadism, cunnilingus, anilingus, etc. But I wasn't aware of this "intermediate" definition, that requires penetration but not a penis.


Oh blah blah. You are being dishonest, whether you meant to be or not. You're ascribing views to me that I do not have.

Probably. I was ascribing views to you that seemed to me to be expressed in your writing without forcing an interpretation. Maybe I am wrong, and you honestly believe it is easy to understand "sexual intercourse" as meaning penetration but not necessarily heterosexual genital penetration of the vagina.

From that to "dishonesty", there is a long, rough way.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

If I knew she was a liar - that she would make that exact kind of lies, to be precise - no, I would not have had sexual relations with her.

So you had sex with her despite knowing she was lying?


And where do I?

You: "The above is, again, an evasion, because he goes back to an old patriarchal myth: that rape is necessarily penetration, and consequently can only be committed by men."


Which seems a reasonable assumption. You have said that rape is necessarily penetration, and have not made any effort to make clear that you could be thinking about other kind of penetration.

Reasonable or not, it is wrong.


Any way, we see that you don't consider other kinds of sexual acts committed through violence of threat of violence, to be "rape", if they do not involve penetration.

That's a matter of debate, I haven't formed an opinion on that.


Nor have I said that you think that rape necessarily involves a penis. Much on the contrary

But you did say that I was being evasive by claiming that rape could only be committed by a man because I talk specifically of penetration.


That is a curious definition. Then you believe that penetration with an object, or with fingers, constitute "sexual intercourse", but that cunnilingus doesn't?

I'm not familiar with it, but isn't cunnilingus penetration with a tongue? Also, an act of penetration can involve a woman sitting on a man's penis when he is asleep, for example.


I have seen the phrase used in a rigorous way, meaning sexual penetration of the vagina with a penis, and I have seen the phrase used in a lax way meaning any kind of sexual acts that do not necessarily involve penetration of any kind, such as tribadism, cunnilingus, anilingus, etc. But I wasn't aware of this "intermediate" definition, that requires penetration but not a penis.

Well, I am using the literal definition.


From that to "dishonesty", there is a long, rough way.

Fair enough.

[Luís Henrique]

So you had sex with her despite knowing she was lying?

It seems I have just stated the opposite?


That's a matter of debate, I haven't formed an opinion on that.

Well, good. That's quite better than the position you repeatedly stated, that
"rape is penetration without consent".


But you did say that I was being evasive by claiming that rape could only be committed by a man because I talk specifically of penetration.

True, and immediately added:


Or perhaps she is, but only if she uses a dildo


I'm not familiar with it, but isn't cunnilingus penetration with a tongue? Also, an act of penetration can involve a woman sitting on a man's penis when he is asleep, for example.

Your tongue must be longer than mine... :laugh:

But you didn't use only the substantive "penetration", you also used the verb "to penetrate", and I think it is too much of a contortion to argue that a woman is "penetrating" a man in the case you describe...


Well, I am using the literal definition.

Which isn't about "penetration" per se, but about penetration with a penis.


Fair enough.

Thanks.

[#FF0000]

And that's where peoples shifty theories alienate millions of people and makes the left in general look bat shit insane. Because the line isn't drawn. One lie or any manipulative act must be the same as any other with no "hierarchy" of lies or manipulation just as there can't be a "hierarchy" of rape.

I disagree, though. Like I said, lying about what you had for breakfast is not the same as creating an entirely new identity or promising someone "yeah I'm interested in a serious relationship" to get them to sleep with you then peaceing in the early morning before they wake up.


Rape is indeed rape and lying/manipulation is lying/manipulating so at the end of the day we're pretty much all rapists. I'm going to go outside and look at the stars now while wondering what the hell or when the hell the left went bat shit insane.

I gave a lot of examples of what kind of lying/manipulation constitutes rape, though. It's like you're ignoring what we're saying and just going straight for the all/nothing interpretation that literally no one is putting forward.

[human strike]

http://www.alternet.org/gender/does-gender-matter-when-it-comes-sexual-consent

I'd be interested in reading people's thoughts on this case.

[CyM]

Lying to get someone in bed is despicable and morally reprehensible. But it is not rape. If a woman is cheating on her partner without his knowledge, but continues to have sex with him anyways, your definition would make it rape.

If that is the case, your hyperbole has redefined the vast majority of adulterous partners as rapists too.

[connoros]

Lying to get someone in bed is despicable and morally reprehensible. But it is not rape.

Holy shit, but it is.

[blake 3:17]

http://www.alternet.org/gender/does-gender-matter-when-it-comes-sexual-consent

I'd be interested in reading people's thoughts on this case.

The state violence is despicable.

[MarxArchist]

The state violence is despicable.
I brought that up in this thread already and if my memory serves me TAT or another poster said that was indeed rape. I think I brought up the case where a bunch of boys murdered a trans girl after they found out she was trans. This is my point in bringing up the question "where is the line drawn". A feminist attorney, in an article I posted in this thread said "we should simply let a jury decide that". The conundrum she pointed out though had to do with a specific case where a twin brother lied to his twins girlfriend and told her he was his twin, then had sex with her. That's clearly rape as a result of a lie and they couldn't prosecute because the sex was "legally" consensual. How do we rectify the law in that case? Her answer was to broadly change the law so as any manner of lying/manipulation can warrant a rape charge and let the jury figure it out. The thing with the law, if jurors are instructed to follow the law, a law that states any sort of lying/manipulation is rape, all manner of people could be convicted of rape who no one would think was actually a rapist (well, obviously some people here would think a tans woman is a rapist or a wife cheating on her husband).


It gets messy.

[MarxArchist]

Holy shit, but it is.

When? In which scenarios? Any and all?

[human strike]

The state violence is despicable.

Of course, but let's talk about consent.

[#FF0000]

When? In which scenarios? Any and all?

All of these questions have been answered multiple times.

[MarxArchist]

Where EXACTLY is the line drawn?


All of these questions have been answered multiple times.
No it hasnt been. All you've said was essentially this-


I think people in this thread are taking an all-or-nothing perspective on it. No, telling someone a lie at any point about anything doesn't necessarily make someone a rapist. And yeah, knowingly and actively deceiving someone to have sex with you is most certainly rapeLets take omission into the picture. If I don't tell my partner something, which I know she'll not approve of, lets say, will be angery at me for a week or so and won't have sex with me if I tell her- if I decide to keep it to myself I would then be raping her. To prison with me as I've done this.

If a wife is in a monogamous relationship with a husband (marriage, I know, how bourgeois) and is sleeping with another person and if he found out he would leave her isn't she then raping him each time they have sex? To prison with my x girlfriend.

If I'm speaking with an incredibly shallow person who thinks making $15,000 a year is despicable and I tell them I make 30k a year just to impress them and we have sex later in the night would I be a rapist? To prison with me as I've done this.

If a person has some thing for Germans, lets say, a NEO NAZI female, and she meets a man who is part Native American and part German, but he doesn't tell her about being native American- they have kids, the baby comes out with brown skin can she charge him with rape? To prison with that "half breed mud person" as the NAZI woman would call him.

A prostitute, male or female, takes a customer back to a motel and the customer knows he only has 100 dollars but she charges 125 dollars and they have sex is that rape? (overlooking the theory that prostitution in general is rape). To prison with the "john" (a lot of people would like that no matter what the scenario was- I've never paid for sex by the way).

If a Christian woman is in church surrounded by self righteous blow hards and she meets her Christian dream man who is a virgin and only wants to sleep with/marry a virgin but she's not a virgin and lies about it- is she raping him? To prison with the pious liars.

If a man tells a woman he loves her but really doesn't and has sex with her after he's no longer in love with her while she's under the impression he's still in love with her is that rape? To prison with the emotionally confused.

If a woman is only interested in what sort of material gain she can achieve through a man and tells him whatever he wants to hear and uses sex to manipulate him is that rape? To prison with the gold digger.

If some scum bag pick up artist is in a bar and straight up bullshits his way into some woman's bed, as is their goal, is that rape? Does she not have any agency? To prison with the pick up artists. Cheesy fellows that they are.

If a woman has herpes and doesn't tell the man who would not have had sex with her if he knew she had herpes is that rape? To prison with her?

I can go on and on.

[The Feral Underclass]

If a woman is cheating on her partner without his knowledge, but continues to have sex with him anyways, your definition would make it rape.

Why would it? Lying does not equate to rape. No one in this thread has suggested that lying is equal to rape. Not telling your partner that you are cheating on them isn't rape...

Using a lie or manipulation to coerce someone specifically into having sex with you is what is being defined as rape. The issue in contention is what one defines as "coercion." Some argue it is only physical violence that constitutes coercion. Others, such as myself, are arguing that coercion should be defined as an act which compels someone to do something against their will, whether it is physical or not.

Furthermore, there is contention around whether "consent" given as a result of lying or manipulation actually equals consent. Some argue that consent is given simply because someone said "yes." Others, again, like myself, argue that consent cannot be given if facts about the decision they are making are being purposefully obfuscated. In other words, if a person isn't in control of all the information necessary to make a decision to give consent, it is not consent, irrespective of whether they have said "yes."

These are the lines of argument.

[The Feral Underclass]

Where EXACTLY is the line drawn?

If a person has knowingly and wilfully lied and/or manipulated another person in order to have sex with them by purposefully removing their ability to consent. That is the line.

[CyM]

Why would it? Lying does not equate to rape. No one in this thread has suggested that lying is equal to rape. Not telling your partner that you are cheating on them isn't rape...

Using a lie or manipulation to coerce someone specifically into having sex with you is what is being defined as rape. The issue in contention is what one defines as "coercion." Some argue it is only physical violence that constitutes coercion. Others, such as myself, are arguing that coercion should be defined as an act which compels someone to do something against their will, whether it is physical or not.

Furthermore, there is contention around whether "consent" given as a result of lying or manipulation actually equals consent. Some argue that consent is given simply because someone said "yes." Others, again, like myself, argue that consent cannot be given if facts about the decision they are making are being purposefully obfuscated. In other words, if a person isn't in control of all the information necessary to make a decision to give consent, it is not consent, irrespective of whether they have said "yes."

These are the lines of argument.
The partner who was being cheated on would not be having sex with her if he knew she had cheated on him. So he is giving "false" consent under your definition of rape. This is clearly not tenable.

Look, there are obviously some cases where lying definitely would constitute rape, and that the violence definition is not adequate. Like the situation with the identical twins mentioned two posts up. Or things like promising a monetary gain you have no intention of providing (jobs).

But I think allowing the definition to run away from the accepted one too much is dangerous. Much of manipulation is misogyny, some is rape, taking advantage of someone, but not all is.

This has to be looked at case by case, and the over the top way that even people who doubted the black and white definition were painted in this very thread shows how dangerous it is to adopt this definition. People who disagreed were slurred as "rape apologists".

This is serious. Rape accusations can easily ruin lives. The fact that so many people were willing to call people who they disagreed with "rape apologists" shows just how scary such a broad definition of rape would be. I have seen not a single thread to ban these "rape apologists". Why? Because the people making the accusations know, themselves, that that is not the case or else there would be bans being called for. And yet they throw these accusations about lightly.

I am not worried about false accusations of rape from women. I am worried about false accusations from idiot men on the sidelines playing games like we see here, inflaming things which are not rape but simple quarrels.

Example, when I was younger I once was in the middle of nowhere, maybe 45 minutes from where I lived. I was at a party with my partner. My older brother was there too. Time for him to leave, he has a car. I ask my partner, and she asks me to stay and go home with her. Ten minutes later, she's leaving and says not to come. Nothing has happened in that time, we were mingling in different parts of the room having political conversations. I'm like what the hell? What am I supposed to do? I could have taken the ride before! She has a place to stay nearby, and I explain to her that I would now have to sleep in the streets. Anyways, idiot postmodernist friend of hers (who hates me) intervenes and says that I am being abusive. I tell him to fuck off. But it doesn't matter, I ended up sleeping on the street that night and got my cellphone robbed.

Anyways, she dumped me the next day because she said her friend told her he thinks I'm abusive.

I don't think being mad at being told last minute that I had to sleep on the street is the same as being abusive, but idiot friends with broad definitions will jump into things. I have witnesses, including women, who thought I was being quite reasonable, and had a right to be angry. And confirmed that at no point was I physically threatening or anything like that.

Your broad definition has already stirred up a mob of males in this very thread. If applied in real life, a lot of innocent people would be their victims.

[Fred]

That was no evident! Not at all! You were talking about marriage. No where did you mention sex. If you were talking about sexual intercourse, then say sexual intercourse, not marriage.



Your example was stupid and it doesn't relate to my views. You might want it to, but it doesn't. My views relate exclusively to efforts made by individuals to to force others to engage in sexual intercourse. Not marriage, not about wearing a condom, not about telling someone they look pretty -- about sexual intercourse, or in other words, an act of penetration.



That's not my opinion! The fact that you didn't wear a condom because she told you she was taking pills does not relate to my views. It's not rape because you chose not to wear a condom. She didn't trick you into having sex, she tricked you into not wearing a condom. Had she been honest, you would have put the condom on, right? You didn't intend not to have sex with this woman, you simply intended to wear a condom, which you chose not to.



Where do I mention anything about penises...?



I am no defending it this view. I have stated clearly that I do not agree that rape is only rape if it is penetration with a penis, and there is no where in this thread that I have stated that.



No, Luis. You have made presumptions about my views without me ever stating them. I have never, ever said that I think rape is exclusively about penetration with a penis. I just have not said that and it is not my opinion.



Except you have presumed that because I used the word penetration this means that I think rape is exclusively about penetration with a penis. You have made that assumption.



Except I have never actually said those words...



But that doesn't mean that I think it is exclusively with a penis, Luis. I am not denying that I think rape is "with penetration," what I am objecting to is that I think it is exclusively about a penis. I have never stated that opinion and do not think it.

Sexual intercourse must involve an act of penetration, without an act of penetration, there is no sexual intercourse. That does not make it exclusively about a penis.



Oh blah blah. You are being dishonest, whether you meant to be or not. You're ascribing views to me that I do not have.

Why don't you just stop doing that.

Your efforts to be categorical where there are not clear categories coupled with your petite bourgeois moralism lead you into dead ends. This thing about dishonesty equaling rape is truly idiotic. And comrades have come up with umpteen examples as to why it is idiotic, but you stick to your guns. It just seems like you want to be seen as the best defender of the virtue of women. (as opposed to actually defending women's rights) Chivalry is not dead, it would appear.

[The Feral Underclass]

The partner who was being cheated on would not be having sex with her if he knew she had cheated on him. So he is giving "false" consent under your definition of rape. This is clearly not tenable.

Lots of people continue having sex with their partners despite their partners' infidelity. We don't know if this hypothetical person would hypothetically sleep or not sleep with their hypothetical partner if they hypothetically discovered their hypothetical partner was hypothetically cheating. I mean we can make an argument go any way we please with a hypothetical i.e. something that isn't real.

In any case, this scenario is not within the parameters of my definition for two reasons. Firstly, your scenario presumes that this woman is somehow contractually obliged not to have sex with another person, as if the man somehow has a right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. If two people are stupid enough to enter into a monogamous relationship with each other and have specifically entered into a knowing contract of obligations (be monogamous/be intimate) and they are not allowed to have sex or be intimate with any one other than each other, and then one of them breaks that contract of obligation (by doing what the fuck they want anyway), that doesn't constitute rape. At worst it constitutes a breakdown of trust or a redefining of those obligations. (In actual fact it is just someone exercising their autonomy.)

Secondly, and importantly, the person hasn't used a lie and/or manipulation to get their partner to have sex with them. We are not talking about a contract of obligations (that two people may enter into). We are talking about a contract of intent (I agree to do this with you on these conditions) being obfuscated, not about a person who isn't fulfilling their obligations of a contract (i.e. be monogamous/be intimate). So when we are talking about lying to and manipulating someone into having sex, there has to actually be a contractual intent in order for lies and manipulation to be employed. If we assume that some contract of obligation exists within a relationship and a person becomes suspicious that their partner is trying to redefine those obligations and then says: "Are you having sex with another human being because if you are I do not want to have sex with you" they are setting forth a contract of intent (I intend to have sex with you on these conditions). If their partner says "No, I am not having sex with another human being, I promise. Can I now have sex with you" and the person agrees to that contract of intent when their partner is in fact lying, then they are using a lie and/or manipulation to get sex.

In other words, saying or assuming that your partner is obliged not to have sex with other people is not the same as specifically telling your partner you will not have sex with them if they sleeping with other people. Similarly, agreeing with your partner not to have sex with other people is not the same as telling your partner that you are not sleeping with other people in order for them to have sex with you.


But I think allowing the definition to run away from the accepted one too much is dangerous. Much of manipulation is misogyny, some is rape, taking advantage of someone, but not all is.

I do not see how 'some' lying and manipulation is rape and 'some' lying and manipulation is not rape. I don't see how there can be anything other than binary positions. Either you lie and manipulate to get sex or you do not.


This has to be looked at case by case, and the over the top way that even people who doubted the black and white definition were painted in this very thread shows how dangerous it is to adopt this definition. People who disagreed were slurred as "rape apologists".

But you want to apply standards whereby some lying and manipulation is permissible and other lying and manipulation is not. You are arguing that there are situations in which it is either okay or at the very least permissible for someone to lie and manipulate someone else into having sex with them.

You can try and justify that situation by providing examples of degree, but this presupposes that there are examples in which someone's consent is not relevant; that someone's agency to make decisions on what they do with their body is not important.

I simply cannot accept that there is any example whereby it is acceptable or permissible for someone to lie and manipulate someone out of their agency and consent in order to have sex with them. It doesn't matter what degree or how big the lie or manipulation was, what is central and fundamental to this argument is that someone's agency and consent is inviolable above all else.

Now it's fine if other people to want to use a different word to describe that act, but I think that diminishes the seriousness of it and ignores the actual definition of rape, which is to force someone to have sex with you.


This is serious. Rape accusations can easily ruin lives. The fact that so many people were willing to call people who they disagreed with "rape apologists" shows just how scary such a broad definition of rape would be. I have seen not a single thread to ban these "rape apologists". Why? Because the people making the accusations know, themselves, that that is not the case or else there would be bans being called for. And yet they throw these accusations about lightly.

Well, it's against board policy to start ban threads, so that probably has something to do with it. In any case, the views presented in this thread are so beyond the scope of most people's understanding that of course they will just reject them out of hand.

But what the above statement does, whether it means to or not, is apply focus to the alleged perpetrator and not to the alleged victim. This is yet another example of the perniciousness of rape culture. The issue that you are focusing on is not broadening the definition of rape to protect victims, but narrowing the definition to protect perpetrators.

I am not suggesting that you are doing this for nefarious reasons, but that it is a consequence of your attitude and the focus of your priorities.


I am not worried about false accusations of rape from women. I am worried about false accusations from idiot men on the sidelines playing games like we see here, inflaming things which are not rape but simple quarrels.

This is just conjecture and has no basis in this argument.


Example, when I was younger I once was in the middle of nowhere, maybe 45 minutes from where I lived. I was at a party with my partner. My older brother was there too. Time for him to leave, he has a car. I ask my partner, and she asks me to stay and go home with her. Ten minutes later, she's leaving and says not to come. Nothing has happened in that time, we were mingling in different parts of the room having political conversations. I'm like what the hell? What am I supposed to do? I could have taken the ride before! She has a place to stay nearby, and I explain to her that I would now have to sleep in the streets. Anyways, idiot postmodernist friend of hers (who hates me) intervenes and says that I am being abusive. I tell him to fuck off. But it doesn't matter, I ended up sleeping on the street that night and got my cellphone robbed.

Anyways, she dumped me the next day because she said her friend told her he thinks I'm abusive.

Maybe you are abusive? Had this crossed your mind? Often men do not realise how their behaviour can be abusive. Presumably she didn't want you to be in her house because, rightly or wrongly, she thought you were abusive, which is her right, right?

It's pretty shitty that you were inconvenienced and robbed, but why would a woman who thinks her partner is abusive let her alleged abusive partner in to her house? The fact that you would think the priority in that situation was finding you somewhere to sleep demonstrates that you're not really connected to the issue at hand.

Also being a post-modernist (whatever that means) doesn't mean you are stupid.


I don't think being mad at being told last minute that I had to sleep on the street is the same as being abusive, but idiot friends with broad definitions will jump into things.

But she felt that she was being abused, so what is most important when you're in a relationship with someone: you making sure everyone doesn't think you're abusive and have a bed, or making sure the person you care about doesn't feel abused?


I have witnesses, including women, who thought I was being quite reasonable, and had a right to be angry. And confirmed that at no point was I physically threatening or anything like that.

This is just another example of misplaced priorities. Who cares what other people think? The woman you were in a relationship with didn't think they were right and surely she is the most important person in this equation.

It's fine to think she is wrong, but to be angry at her and seemingly diminish/belittle/ignore her concerns because you wanted somewhere to sleep sounds pretty fucked to me.


Your broad definition has already stirred up a mob of males in this very thread. If applied in real life, a lot of innocent people would be their victims.

My focus is on making sure people are not coerced into having sex with people against their will. If you want to focus on making sure that people don't get accused of that, then that's fine, but in my view your priorities are wrong.

[connoros]

When? In which scenarios? Any and all?

I'll be specific: when one presents oneself under false pretenses, and it is based on deliberate misinformation that a person consents to sexual activity, then sexual violence has occurred. Violence, indeed rape specifically needn't always be physically coercive. Dishonest manipulation of someone into a position in which they make themselves vulnerable for the sake of sexual activity is rape. There isn't much difference between holding a person down and telling them you can support them for a lifetime if what happens is the person in question is having sex with a person with whom they did not consent to having sex. If a man tells a woman he's Mr. A when he's really Mr. B, and the women consents to sex with Mr. A but instead has sex with Mr. B, then rape has occurred.

[MarxArchist]

I'll be specific: when one presents oneself under false pretenses, and it is based on deliberate misinformation that a person consents to sexual activity, then sexual violence has occurred. Violence, indeed rape specifically needn't always be physically coercive. Dishonest manipulation of someone into a position in which they make themselves vulnerable for the sake of sexual activity is rape. There isn't much difference between holding a person down and telling them you can support them for a lifetime if what happens is the person in question is having sex with a person with whom they did not consent to having sex. If a man tells a woman he's Mr. A when he's really Mr. B, and the women consents to sex with Mr. A but instead has sex with Mr. B, then rape has occurred.

I agree to an extent, as I said the undercover cop who constructs an entire fake identity and sleeps with women= rapist. The twin brother example= rapist but when you say this:


when one presents oneself under false pretenses, and it is based on deliberate misinformation that a person consents to sexual activity, then sexual violence has occurred.When you define it as such it opens the door, no, flood gates for some very crappy definitions/accusations of rape. Why can't you understand this? Same goes for the people who thanked your post. I feel like a dog chasing its tail at this point in the thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

What you define it as such it opens the door, no, flood gates for some very crappy accusations of rape. Why can't you understand this? Same goes for the people who thanked your post. I feel like a dog chasing its tail at this point in the thread.

Perhaps because we don't agree with you...

I just don't think what you're saying is true and I don't think it has any basis in reality. Why do you think people will just start making wild accusations simply because the definition of rape more broadly includes people who use lies and manipulation to coerce sex from people. What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

[connoros]

When you define it as such it opens the door, no, flood gates for some very crappy definitions/accusations of rape. Why can't you understand this? Same goes for the people who thanked your post. I feel like a dog chasing its tail at this point in the thread.

What exactly are you trying to prove, here? And how exactly does defining dishonest manipulation into sex as rape "open the floodgates" for "crappy" accusations of rape? And what makes an accusation of rape "crappy?"

[CyM]

This is It's pretty shitty that you were inconvenienced and robbed, but why would a woman who thinks her partner is abusive let her alleged abusive partner in to her house? The fact that you would think the priority in that situation was finding you somewhere to sleep demonstrates that you're not really connected to the issue at hand.

Also being a post-modernist (whatever that means) doesn't mean you are stupid.

But she felt that she was being abused, so what is most important when you're in a relationship with someone: you making sure everyone doesn't think you're abusive and have a bed, or making sure the person you care about doesn't feel abused?

This is just another example of misplaced priorities. Who cares what other people think? The woman you were in a relationship with didn't think they were right and surely she is the most important person in this equation.

It's fine to think she is wrong, but to be angry at her and seemingly diminish/belittle/ignore her concerns because you wanted somewhere to sleep sounds pretty fucked to me.
Ok. See this is what I mean when I say men who have nothing to do with the situation is what I would worry about with such a loose definition.

I had had no interaction with her until she said she was leaving. Nothing had changed in that time. The accusation of being abusive came later, from her post modernist male friend, not her, and being post modernist does define you as stupid. This came from me being upset at being told last minute that I would be ditched in the middle of fucking nowhere. See, in bourgeois left or post left academic circles no one is allowed to get upset. Because being upset is intimidating you see. Of course, I had never before been upset with her, even when she slapped or yelled at me (a pattern of mine to be om the receiving end of this kind of behavior). But mr. White Rich Latte in shining armor wanted to express concern that I was upset I would be sleeping on the street. She didn't decide she didn't want me there because of any concern, she just didn't feel like it (sex was not an issue, I had slept on her couch before, but she was a bit of an emotional sadist as she admitted to me once, and publicly abandoning me was part of that twisted dynamic betwee us).

I was not abusive, I was the abused. But that doesn't matter, because males on the sidelines will define things however they want. I only brought this up to show how dangerous it is for males to redefine rape so broadly, because from personal experience I don't trust them to judge.

As you said yourself, what matters is what the person themselves feels.

[Vanguard1917]

But mr. White Rich Latte in shining armor wanted to express concern that I was upset I would be sleeping on the street.

I think i know the type of man you mean - the type that's so progressive and advanced in their views that they see women as delicate little flowers vulnerable to abuse on an hourly basis by manipulative and overpowering men.

[MarxArchist]

Ok. See this is what I mean when I say men who have nothing to do with the situation is what I would worry about with such a loose definition.

I had had no interaction with her until she said she was leaving. Nothing had changed in that time. The accusation of being abusive came later, from her post modernist male friend, not her, and being post modernist does define you as stupid. This came from me being upset at being told last minute that I would be ditched in the middle of fucking nowhere. See, in bourgeois left or post left academic circles no one is allowed to get upset. Because being upset is intimidating you see. Of course, I had never before been upset with her, even when she slapped or yelled at me (a pattern of mine to be om the receiving end of this kind of behavior). But mr. White Rich Latte in shining armor wanted to express concern that I was upset I would be sleeping on the street. She didn't decide she didn't want me there because of any concern, she just didn't feel like it (sex was not an issue, I had slept on her couch before, but she was a bit of an emotional sadist as she admitted to me once, and publicly abandoning me was part of that twisted dynamic betwee us).

I was not abusive, I was the abused. But that doesn't matter, because males on the sidelines will define things however they want. I only brought this up to show how dangerous it is for males to redefine rape so broadly, because from personal experience I don't trust them to judge.

As you said yourself, what matters is what the person themselves feels.
Perhaps you're just an abuser as TAT said and you need to do some personal reflection. In fact, I think all of us can learn from being labeled (libeled?) as such. Just sit with yourself and ponder it. In fact, perhaps you're a rapist. A racist rapist. It doesn't matter that there's no basis for these claims because in order to fight racism/sexism we need to exaggerate
any and all scenario's that may or may not actually be so.

[MarxArchist]

Some argue it is only physical violence that constitutes coercion. Others, such as myself, are arguing that coercion should be defined as an act which compels someone to do something against their will, whether it is physical or not.



It's infraction time. Fuck you. Just fuck you. Hand it down mods.