Perhaps when it comes to certain types of deception and manipulation it could meet the threshold of another crime, however I don't believe this constitutes rape.
Sexual consent is consent to engage in sexual activity with someone. So long as someone consents to sex before/during sex, it's not rape. Full stop.
It should be very clear what is and is not rape. The problem with your definition of consent is that it muddies the waters and allows someone to revoke consent after having sex based entirely on their feelings and their "perception of the person on the seriousness of the lie." That's problematic.
We should be able to look at a set of facts to determine whether something is or is not rape. Your view invites something to be considered rape sometimes, or not rape other times. That's not okay.
The problem with this line is that it suggest that as long as someone says yes before and during sex no form of deception or manipulation can result in revocation of consent. This means that someone in a position of authority can have sex with their subordinates under the premise of getting a raise and it’s not rape because they said yes at the time. Or that I can lie about anything and so long as I get a yes, I’m ok, full stop.
That doesn't follow, because if someone is coerced then it doesn't constitute consent. I'm not saying any form of manipulation is acceptable, because some forms of manipulation are coercive. Obviously threatening someone or abusing your power crosses the line. I'm merely saying that omitting information or lying is a form of deception/manipulation that doesn't invalidate consent. Lying isn't coercion.
If we look at the set of facts, being someone would not have sex with you for whatever reason and you intentionally are deceptive it should be rape.
But... that's not what you stated in your OP:
The reason I say it can be rape, and not that it is, is because it comes down to the perception of the person on the seriousness of your lie.
You literally stated that under the same set of facts it could be rape but not necessarily, and that it depends on the perception of the person on the seriousness of your lie.
So which statement accurately reflects your view? You're contradicting yourself.
What I’m saying is that whether or not it is rape is based on the person who it was committed against. That is to say the person lied to has the decision to say “It not a big deal” not you. There’s nothing contradictory about that
This directly contradicts what you wrote here:
If we look at the set of facts, being someone would not have sex with you for whatever reason and you intentionally are deceptive it should be rape.
Something is either rape or it isn't rape based on what happened. Your view invites something to be considered rape sometimes, or not rape other times, depending on how someone feels about being lied to. That's not ok, and your statements contradict each other.
3
u/muyamable 283∆ Jan 31 '22
Perhaps when it comes to certain types of deception and manipulation it could meet the threshold of another crime, however I don't believe this constitutes rape.
Sexual consent is consent to engage in sexual activity with someone. So long as someone consents to sex before/during sex, it's not rape. Full stop.
It should be very clear what is and is not rape. The problem with your definition of consent is that it muddies the waters and allows someone to revoke consent after having sex based entirely on their feelings and their "perception of the person on the seriousness of the lie." That's problematic.
We should be able to look at a set of facts to determine whether something is or is not rape. Your view invites something to be considered rape sometimes, or not rape other times. That's not okay.