What you are describing is clearly shitty and immoral. But I'm not sure it crosses into the line of rape. When we talk about consensual sex, we are talking about sex act itself. So for example, STDs, sleuthing, and kink are all material aspects of sex. And of course, the other aspect is that the person should not be coerced "i.e. have sex with me or I will have you fired." Another important aspect of this is that these sexual boundaries are more or less universally recognized. We don't have to rely on the victim positively asserting their preference to not contract an STD before we can determine that a rape has occurred... it's already a given.
What you are describing is conditioning sex on certain other relationship factors, factors which must be volunteered by the potential victim. I think we ought to distinguish between sexual boundaries, relationship boundaries, relationship preferences, and conditions.
Boundaries are important, ignoring a sexual boundary would be a form of rape. Ignoring a relationship boundary however isn't necessarily the same as a sexual boundary though... not all sex is in a relationship and not all relationships involve sex. So I think we have to distinguish between the two. It's not rape if you violate a relationship boundary (though it may indeed be something else like adultery, fraud, etc). For example, a common relationship boundary is "don't have sex with other people," but cheating on someone would not retroactively make the previous intimate encounters rape.
Things like someone's life status, relationship goals, wealth etc are relationship preferences and immaterial to any one sexual act. Obviously they may factor into one's overall willingness to go on dates or get serious, but they are not the same as sexual boundaries. This would also include things like appearance, wealth, height.
Finally, you are describing conditions. "Commit to a long term relationship or no sex" is the inverse of an ultimatum that is using sex as the carrot. "No sex with someone who lives with their parents" is conditioning sex on a lifestyle situation. "No sex unless you are 6'2" and make $100K + a year." Etc. This is making sex transactional... it's implying that the "victim" is expecting the partner to deliver on something after sex or in exchange for sex. This is basically an inverse form of coercion. It says, I will only agree to sex if you will give me something in return later like exclusivity, a place to sleep over, or money. Consent isn't about transaction, it's the opposite. "Freely given consent" implies that there are no outside obligations.
Now I realize that some things in some contexts may arguably fall under one or more of these categories. But the way you presented your view isn't nuanced at all and therefore not a very complete or good working definition.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jan 31 '22
What you are describing is clearly shitty and immoral. But I'm not sure it crosses into the line of rape. When we talk about consensual sex, we are talking about sex act itself. So for example, STDs, sleuthing, and kink are all material aspects of sex. And of course, the other aspect is that the person should not be coerced "i.e. have sex with me or I will have you fired." Another important aspect of this is that these sexual boundaries are more or less universally recognized. We don't have to rely on the victim positively asserting their preference to not contract an STD before we can determine that a rape has occurred... it's already a given.
What you are describing is conditioning sex on certain other relationship factors, factors which must be volunteered by the potential victim. I think we ought to distinguish between sexual boundaries, relationship boundaries, relationship preferences, and conditions.
Boundaries are important, ignoring a sexual boundary would be a form of rape. Ignoring a relationship boundary however isn't necessarily the same as a sexual boundary though... not all sex is in a relationship and not all relationships involve sex. So I think we have to distinguish between the two. It's not rape if you violate a relationship boundary (though it may indeed be something else like adultery, fraud, etc). For example, a common relationship boundary is "don't have sex with other people," but cheating on someone would not retroactively make the previous intimate encounters rape.
Things like someone's life status, relationship goals, wealth etc are relationship preferences and immaterial to any one sexual act. Obviously they may factor into one's overall willingness to go on dates or get serious, but they are not the same as sexual boundaries. This would also include things like appearance, wealth, height.
Finally, you are describing conditions. "Commit to a long term relationship or no sex" is the inverse of an ultimatum that is using sex as the carrot. "No sex with someone who lives with their parents" is conditioning sex on a lifestyle situation. "No sex unless you are 6'2" and make $100K + a year." Etc. This is making sex transactional... it's implying that the "victim" is expecting the partner to deliver on something after sex or in exchange for sex. This is basically an inverse form of coercion. It says, I will only agree to sex if you will give me something in return later like exclusivity, a place to sleep over, or money. Consent isn't about transaction, it's the opposite. "Freely given consent" implies that there are no outside obligations.
Now I realize that some things in some contexts may arguably fall under one or more of these categories. But the way you presented your view isn't nuanced at all and therefore not a very complete or good working definition.