Two different stories about consent and "rape", a paradox

It's absolutely and entirely RAPE, when the gender of the individual is not disclosed.

It doesn't matter a damn what the male (pretending to be female) chooses to believe about themselves. Not relevant in any way .. morally or legally.

 

Nice try, but you have avoided the issue. The issue was whether the a trans pretending to be a different gender and having sex with someone is different from the lesbian who tricked the woman into having sex with her by making her think she was a guy.

You have never explained how exactly they are different.

 

Well, they do have a key difference; the mental state of the perpetrator. But that's not relevant to the victimization.

 

Many times now I've pointed out that the issue was lack of consent.

Any possible claim of consent was invalidated by the "subterfuge", as you call it.

 

>> They AREN'T different.

In both cases the acts involved are totally legal as long as there is consent.

In both cases there was a lack of consent.

 

No clue what you're trying to say here, sorry.

 

The issue in the scenarios is that consent is required.

Consent obtained through subterfuge must be discounted.

 

Exactly my point.

You can't consent to one person, but be legally rogered by another (which is essentially what's happening here).

 

First off, your speculation, about my having opposing opinions on these two cases, was wrong. I feel that both cases, though they were significantly different, nevertheless qualify as sexual assault.

As to the Iowa wife's case, I would like to respond to your OP:

There is no such thing as "implied sexual consent," that would cover all particular instances; IOW, either partner does not surrender their right, with their marriage vows, to not be "in the mood." While it would be assumed that the couple would engage in sex, there is absolutely no timetable to it, as you ludicrously suggest, obliging the woman to "punch in," on at least a weekly basis. The story was very short on details, but the jurors' rationale was not your own: that a woman can't be raped by her husband, if she hasn't given herself up to him, for at least a week. The verdict was based on a lack of evidence, as it came down to a scenario of simply he said/she said.
[SNIP]
One juror later told the prosecutor there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Griffin, who declined to comment, appears to be the only husband in at least the past five years to stand trial in Iowa on charges related to raping his wife while they lived together, according to court records.

His defense lawyer, Robert Rehkemper, told the Des Moines Register the jury saw through what he called Battani's false allegations.

More:1 in 6 Iowa women say an intimate partner has raped them, survey says.
[End SNIP]

 

The two OP scenarios were presented as being entirely separate.

 

A casual sexual encounter with a random stranger is a bit different from a long-term sexual relationship where the two are "partners". A long-term sexual relationship is different from an official marriage.

"intimate partner" is a little bit vague, in the area that matters in this discussion.

By bringing up that statistical quote, you seem to be conflating together different situations in which the sex happens.

 

Amazing how you can be so oblivious to your missteps. My "bringing up," of that quote, was part of the Snip, from your article. So, you are saying that the article that you used as a source for one of your two stories, was "conflating together different (incomparable) situations." And you see no reason to reexamine your remark, in light of its impugning the judgement of your own source? Remarkable.

Regardless, you have failed to answer my challenge of your assertion, that the marriage contract "obliges," a woman to have sex with her husband, when he's in the mood, even if she does not want to. I'm sure I am not the only one who would like to see anything supporting that idea of yours.


Additionally, I'll note that the poll results are, thus far, not planning out as you had assumed they would: 75% felt as I did, that both situations qualified as rape.

 

That was only a smaller part of my total argument. If that was the ONLY reason for my argument, then I would see it as mitigating what the man did, not totally justifying it.

Do you still want to focus on that one point, even knowing that it is not the primary justification for the wider argument? (I just don't want you to feel like you wasted energy arguing over a trivial smaller point, when it is not even what I see as the most important part of the issue)

 

This "implied" sexual contract was your full argument, as to why the husband's behavior was not improper, wasn't it?

Maybe it would be best if you told me, in no uncertain terms, what you, "see as the most important part of this issue." You did think that the lesbian who fooled the British woman into having sex (even if you said the penalty was overly harsh), had committed a crime, didn't you? So, without making an excuse for the husband's forcing himself on his wife, it would seem that you would be in agreement with nearly all the rest of us, that both situations could be considered rape. Since your OP made it clear that you expected to see hypocrisy, though that has failed to manifest, also suggests that your argument is predicated upon your seeing this apparent hypocrisy in your own varying impressions of the two cases; IOW, whatever your main point, it seems to rest upon your seeing the man's acts as legitimate, because he was wed to his victim. Therefore, I was just noting that the justification you gave, in that thread, was bogus. If this is not relevant to the crux of your argument, then fine, by all means, continue on to that.

 

I am called a liberal on this site.
And I say, If one is trans, that has to be known up front. Like of one is married or not.

 

You've lost me again. Are you sure you're responding to my post?

 

It's about ten billion times more important than marital status.

 

The sexual preferences and identities of the individuals is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.

The only relevancy is consent.

Not even marital status overrides consent.

 

If you ask a straight man if he thinks they're equal lies, I guarantee you'll struggle to find even one who says 'yes'.

 

"Equal lies"???

Tell me about the legal basis for THAT.

We ALL know that there are people who hate anyone LGBT or Q. So, finding someone to express that hate should be EASY for you. But, that is obviously irrelevant.

The issue is consent.

 

I have no clue, sorry. This doesn't seem in any way related to my post.

 

Of course it is.

The opinion of a "straight guy" is irrelevant.

What's relevant is the law. Under the law, the behaviors in the OP are ALL LEGAL.

The ONLY part that is not legal is the lack of consent.

Consent IS the only issue.

 

Say someone gave you a sandwich and you ate it and then later on tried to give you another sandwich, but you said you were not hungry, would it be ok for that person to force you to eat that sandwich?
What if you made a deal with that person that they would make you sandwiches, and you would eat them, would it still be ok for them to force you to eat it?

Now let's say that someone offered you a some fried shrimp, and after you ate them, you discovered they were actually fried crickets, do you have the right to be mad?

This is what consent is about.

 

But it isn't rape to have sex with a married person and they don't tell you. Sometimes people even lie about it and even then few call it rape. Do you?

 

Everyone's opinion is relevant.

The OP does not ask what the state of the law is. It asks your opinion on what is right. The two are not necessarily the same.

Homosexuality is illegal in some places. That doesn't make homosexuality wrong.

But consent to what and with whom? That is the question. It's an interesting question.