woman sent to prison for "sexual assault" for misrepresenting her gender

that would absolutely be rape

how are they going to seize the body if the person is in a costume?

So deception is only deception to gain consent if they faked it to this level in this level only?

 

Who decides what is important? You don’t believe it’s an extremely personal decision?

 

Now you are sounding like a conservative Libertarian on the Right.

(which of course you are not)

 

It is, and the victim did not make it.

That's the whole point. She did not actively make the mental decision to sleep with a woman.

Your statement seems more like it is making the case against the argument you are trying to make.

 

How about the wife who is raped? She should have seen it coming when she married an a$$hole. And when she ignored all those later signs that he was an a$$hole, and stayed with him.

 

I actually agree with this it's just the fact that a diet isn't a person.

again you don't have sex with someone's diet you only do that with a person.

If they lie to you about their sex about who they are and then they say there's somebody they aren't as in an imposter that could be considered rape.

But lying about cheating on a diet isn't. The person is still the person and if they were honest about that then yes you can give informed consent because again you have sex with a person not a diet.

 

Uh, what? I want personal freedom. Yup, I lean Libertarian. I think people’s decisions on what is and is not important criteria for sexual contact, should be up to them. Call me crazy!

 

So do I.

The woman (the victim) should be able to select this criteria.

 

We are getting off-topic, but I happen to believe they should be reluctant to press rape charges when the victim and perpetrator are married.
She implicitly consented to sex when she married, and she can leave that marriage at any time (with 24 hour notice).
Raping someone who you've been having consensual sex with for years obviously isn't the same thing as ordinary rape. Yes, it is morally wrong and similar, but it is not the same and should not be treated legally similar (in my opinion).

The woman knew the person she was marrying. She consented to the person, and that is the main point.
Now if the husband tries to make her sleep with his brother, that is a completey different matter. (Because she never consented to sleep with that person)

 

Okay, we're on different planets in that case.

Marriage is NOT consent to sex - at least not for the last hundred years.

 

Many traditionalist conservatives will agree with me. (a few would even go so far as to say it's impossible to rape your own wife, but I wouldn't go that far)

To some extent it is. In ancient times it would protect a man from rape accusations, for one thing.

Many men have ended up wrongfully convicted of rape because they had sex with some woman outside of marriage. The woman accused him after sex when he tried to leave her, or for some other reason (like to get money).

 

I can see we all have different views on how exactly consent should apply in sexual encounters.

 

Here's another hypothetical. How about a woman thinks she is having sex with some other guy, but it is really her husband in disguise, but she does not want to sleep with her husband right now because they got into a fight a few days ago.
Has she been "raped"?

 

I think there should be a certain level of evidence before anybody is indicted for rape. I don't think there's any special circumstances with regard to married couples.

that depends on which ancient times in some places not that long ago never even currently today women are seen as chattel. Which is to say they are property or a possession

Well sure there are people that are wrongfully convicted murder wrongfully convicted of child molestation that doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute these crimes. Just that convictions should be evidence-based.

 

Whether you agree with it or not, usually the reality is they'll put the man in prison based on only the testimony of the woman, even if there's no other evidence whatsoever.

I do. I think society has become so accustomed to casual sex that marriage now is increasingly viewed as meaningless, creating no special legal circumstances when it comes to sexual consent.

In the old days, marriage was a means for fathers to have some input on whether their daughter could engage in sex with some guy.
This was actually important because it was not uncommon for guns to come out in those days, if the father did not approve.
In the days before abortion, this was taken much more seriously than it is today.

I don't mean to discuss this too far because it is getting the discussion going off topic.

But the point is, people from 120 years ago would have laughed or been very puzzled over some of the sexual consent laws in existence today.

 

I think we're digressing too much into marriage which doesn't really have anything to do with this thread.

Marriage shouldn't be a license to rape people and since that's the only reason it was brought up that's my statement to it.

 

I think we can all agree that if a man pretends to be a woman's husband to have sex with her, he has committed rape.

(unless it can be proved that woman had been sleeping around with lots of guys anyway, in which case the punishment should be much less, and maybe it should not even be called rape then)

 

I’m making the argument that this wasn’t rape, and have been arguing that from my very first post.

you believe otherwise, which is why we disagree.

 

I understand your position and your logic, but I still disagree.

This was an unusual case, but one which could set a precedent.

I'd be curious what the outcome of this would have been with different juries in different areas.

Maybe the prosecutor just did a great job arguing her case and employing emotion to convince the jury.
If you read the story, the judge even instructed the jury to bring the pink flesh-colored dildo with them into the deliberation room.
So the very instrument with which the woman was allegedly "raped" with was sitting on the table as they were making up their minds whether what happened was rape.

 

Exactly, and if this is precedent, every lie is up for grabs, and we will have the Dept of What Constitutes a Non-Rape lie.

 

I could see how you could view this as a slippery slope.

 

If we can agree that what constitutes criteria for wanting to sleep with someone, we should be able to agree that someone who enjoyed sex for two years, was not being raped.

Rape is extremely serious, and not at all pleasant. I was date raped once. It wasn't police-worthy, as I was a young, willing drinker and 1/2 of the tease in this situation, but I still didn't want to have the actual sex.

This particular situation pisses me off, frankly.

 

correct the person choosing to have sex does that. Only have you had sex with the person that lied about their diet or the bank account that doesn't matter. It is deceitful and it is wrong to do that I think but it isn't criminal. Finding about what you eat or how much money you make isn't lying about who you are those things don't make a person

only if he lied about his identity. Diet isn't identity for instance if Jim Carrey decided to stop eating meat tomorrow his identity didn't change. His behavior unrelated to his sex or sexuality changed.

That's why it's not the same thing.

 

That's not necessarily the case.
I can think of a few cases where that could happen and still be a violation.

The duration might not even make much difference here. If it was a violation the first time, it should also still be a violation the second and third time.

 

I get it. You want to create the Dept of What Constitutes a Non-Rape lie.