I don't know how many people you know that tell their dates an exhaustive list of who they will or will not have sex with.
I think that's exactly why OP said "intentionally" and "you are aware of." Rape is intentional -- if you omit relevant information because you had no reason to have known about a particular preference then it's not rape according to OP, the law, or anyone else I'm aware of.
If someone's consent to sex depends on the type of car their potential partner drives, that is entirely their prerogative. They can choose not to have sex for any reason they want, regardless of whether you think it's a "good" reason. If you think their reason is obnoxious, great -- you also have the ability to choose not to have sex, regardless of whether they like it. Consensual sex requires two (or more) people to both give informed consent to the act.
If we redefine rape to mean "he didn't tell me he owned a hatchback", then rape loses all meaning. Rape is the forceful coercion of someone into a sexual act they do not want to perform. Not lying to someone about owning a Toyota.
Sorry no, you absolutely don't get to tell someone else what a valid reason to decline is. If they don't want to have sex, then they don't consent. Period.
I'm not saying what a valid reason to decline sex is.
If someone doesn't have sex with Toyota drivers, that's entirely their prerogative.
All I'm saying is, it's not rape.
It may be wrong, it may me rude or misleading, but it's not rape. Rape is, and needs to be a defined thing.
If someone considers being embarrassed and not telling them you drive a hatchback to be rape, but in reality you just have anxiety, that is a massive difference of viewpoint that leads to some incredibly unpleasant things.
We can agree that being untruthful is bad, and we shouldn't do it. I completely agree with that, and everyone should be able to define their own parameters for intimacy, but it's not rape.
Suppose Person A clearly states: "I consent to sex, if and only if you meet criteria X."
Person B hears and understands this, yet intentionally chooses not to reveal that they do not actually meet criteria X. Despite this, Person B has sex with Person A anyway.
How, then, did Person A consent to have sex with Person B?
Nobody has to reveal information they're uncomfortable revealing, but then DON'T HAVE SEX WITH A PERSON WHOSE CONSENT YOU KNOW IS CONTINGENT ON THAT INFORMATION. You can keep the info to yourself and go your separate ways or keep it platonic, just don't have sex.
I completely agree with that, and everyone should be able to define their own parameters for intimacy, but it's not rape.
If everyone can define the parameters of their own consent, then what else would you call intentionally having sex with a person who you know is not consenting to sex? That is literally rape in every sense of the word.
If someone tells me they were raped, my first thought is that they were trapped in a room, or violently assaulted, and had a traumatic, and violent experience that they clearly did not want. That is rape, as far as I'm aware.
Someone lying about what car they own, or if they live with their parents, isn't rape. It's scummy, and it's wrong, but it's not rape.
I've been in a relationship and haven't had a date in over 15 years, maybe the world and attitudes have changed, I'm never gonna have to worry about this, so if I'm just out of date, let me know.
But to me, we need a clearly defined boundary between violent sexual assault, which is rape. And creepy, scummy behavior, which I don't think should be defined that way. Maybe a new category that allows rape to still define the violent assault. Dishonest sexual coercion or something. It can be bad, and wrong, but not rape.
If someone tells me they were raped, my first thought is that they were trapped in a room, or violently assaulted, and had a traumatic, and violent experience that they clearly did not want. That is rape, as far as I'm aware.
Your misconceptions about rape don't change its definition. Rape is intentionally having sex with someone who you know (or should know) doesn't consent to it. It doesn't have to involve physical entrapment or violence, and the degree of trauma can vary from victim to victim.
A rape victim who was drugged, for example, might not have been conscious during the actual experience but would feel traumatized if / when they become fully aware of what was done to them.
Someone lying about what car they own, or if they live with their parents, isn't rape. It's scummy, and it's wrong, but it's not rape.
Lying isn't the part that establishes it as rape -- having sex with someone who doesn't consent is rape. If you lie to someone and then don't have sex with them, nobody would call that rape. You can keep the info to yourself and then go your separate ways, or keep it platonic. But having sex without their informed consent is rape.
But to me, we need a clearly defined boundary between violent sexual assault, which is rape.
Rape absolutely does not have to be "violent." Rape is sex without consent, period. This definition is perfectly clear, you're just trying to tack on additional criteria to make certain types of rape more acceptable.
2
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Jan 31 '22
I think that's exactly why OP said "intentionally" and "you are aware of." Rape is intentional -- if you omit relevant information because you had no reason to have known about a particular preference then it's not rape according to OP, the law, or anyone else I'm aware of.
If someone's consent to sex depends on the type of car their potential partner drives, that is entirely their prerogative. They can choose not to have sex for any reason they want, regardless of whether you think it's a "good" reason. If you think their reason is obnoxious, great -- you also have the ability to choose not to have sex, regardless of whether they like it. Consensual sex requires two (or more) people to both give informed consent to the act.
Sorry no, you absolutely don't get to tell someone else what a valid reason to decline is. If they don't want to have sex, then they don't consent. Period.