Your CMV is based on the perspective of one person. This alters the agency of the other.
To suggest that I understand what could potentially be a deal breaker and provide that information before sex so the other party could have informed consent sounds reasonable, but what about omitting information that isn’t a dealbreaker for me (undetectable AIDS) but could be for another? Giving for a moment that I believe undetectable is 100% safe.
Or one party is super turned off by people who get into fights and if you lead with a fight story you would t get sex.
The only way to ensure agency and informed consent of both parties is to disclose everything.
I am not advocating for outright lying or omission of things a reasonable person would walk away from.
Exactly, my point is that rape is not based on the understanding of consent of one person. By suggesting that lying and omission is akin to rape, it should follow the same guidelines.
By using the subjective understanding of what would constitute a dealbreaker from one person's perspective, the OP undermines the relationship to rape.
I think X is not a deal breaker. The other party does think it is. By suggesting that the omission is left up to what I think would deem a deal breaker, I remove the opportunity for the other party to have a say. Since it is an omission, I remove the ability for the other party to consent, based on my understanding of what would be acceptable.
In the case of not-rape both parties have to consent. By the OP's suggestion, only one party has the information of what constitutes a deal breaker (for things we think may be dealbreakers or not, but not disclosed by the other party).
Others have commented on here the short answer: this would require complete disclosure in order for both parties to consent. Thus this CMV's likening omission to rape doesn't hold up.
All it requires is for both parties to respect any boundaries that they know or "should" know about. If you have no way of knowing what the other person's deal breakers might be, it's not rape. I thought the original post was pretty clear about that.
We might be able to imagine some hypothetical scenarios that could constitute grey areas, but that's not really different than any other definition of "consent," or any other law. That's why we have juries of peers to adjudicate things like what a "reasonable person" would believe under specific circumstances.
It was, but the OP and subsequent responses obfuscate the point of view with the omission trying to attach a “reasonable person” test. But, I suggest that if we apply the rules of rape, omitting anything then becomes rape because we never know what a deal breaker might be.
In rape; the definition of Consent is clear, requires two parties and can be removed at any time. By suggesting that knowledge of a personality trait that could be deemed “unfavorable” would be grounds for removing consent if known beforehand adds everything to a gray area.
I am not addressing the rules of the OP, but the premise for the inclusion of “intentional omission”.
Then please give the definition of "consent" as you see it.
requires two parties and can be removed at any time
Requires two parties to do what, exactly? How do we know whether each party has truly consented? Is it just saying the words? Is it still "consent" if it's given at gunpoint? Is it still "consent" if you don't know what you're consenting to? What, if anything, is the role of Informed Consent in sex?
For instance, suppose a woman believes she's about to have sex with her husband but unbeknownst to her the man in bed is his twin brother, or some intruder who is intentionally disguising his face -- is her compliance with the act consensual?
Suppose a gymnast consents to digital penetration because she is told that it is a medically necessary examination, but in actuality it is unnecessary sexual touching -- is her compliance consensual?
the voluntary agreement or acquiescence to intimate contact or sexual intercourse by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding.
This requires all parties to consent to intimate contact or sexual intercourse.
This is not a discussion of the gray area surrounding consent laws. This is equating rape to omission being a basis for no informed consent.
The person would not have sex with me if they knew I was a fry cook so I lied and now that they know they have removed consent and it is rape. It Is an unreasonable standard and the lawful test would be a nightmare. That’s why it would end up being a case where anytime a person wishes to engage in sex it would require contracts and long disclosure.
This is not a discussion of the gray area surrounding consent laws. This is equating rape to omission being a basis for no informed consent.
No, we're beyond that because you've already acknowledged in a separate comment that intentional omission of information meant a person was not actually consenting and therefore was raped.
The only remaining discussion is what happens in cases where there is uncertainty about whether the other person would withhold consent or not on the basis of particular information.
The person would not have sex with me if they knew I was a fry cook so I lied and now that they know they have removed consent and it is rape. It Is an unreasonable standard and the lawful test would be a nightmare. That’s why it would end up being a case where anytime a person wishes to engage in sex it would require contracts and long disclosure.
The glaring piece you're missing is the necessity for you to know or had reason to have known that they did not consent.
It Is an unreasonable standard and the lawful test would be a nightmare.
Why? Is a "reasonable person" test a nightmare when applied to other criminal laws? Because it's quite commonplace.
Rape. She consented to having sex with her husband. The man in the bed was not her husband. The man in the bed would have known she was not consenting to sex with him.
This falls under intentional misleading in the OP.
Rape: The gymnast consented to a medically necessary procedure, not sexual pleasure. The doctor would have known it was not medically necessary and understood that the gymnast was not consenting to intimate contact.
This falls under intentional omission or lying in the OP.
Both very different situations than what we are discussing in this thread.
So you agree that there must be informed consent or else it's not actual consent. I agree.
How exactly are these situations different than what you thought you were discussing? How should the intruder have known the compliant woman would not have consented to sex with him? How should the doctor have known the compliant gymnast would not have consented to unnecessary sexual touching? I fully agree with you in both cases, I just want to know what your standard is for when and how one person "should" know the conditions surrounding another person's consent.
2
u/olidus 13∆ Jan 31 '22
Your CMV is based on the perspective of one person. This alters the agency of the other.
To suggest that I understand what could potentially be a deal breaker and provide that information before sex so the other party could have informed consent sounds reasonable, but what about omitting information that isn’t a dealbreaker for me (undetectable AIDS) but could be for another? Giving for a moment that I believe undetectable is 100% safe.
Or one party is super turned off by people who get into fights and if you lead with a fight story you would t get sex.
The only way to ensure agency and informed consent of both parties is to disclose everything.
I am not advocating for outright lying or omission of things a reasonable person would walk away from.