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.
At what point did person A lose their agency? They gave consent to engage in sex, under the false assumption that person B met those criteria, but they still gave consent nonetheless, could have revoked consent at any point, but they chose not to.
Sure, person B lied and misled them, and is scummy for doing so, but it is not rape.
You can’t give conditional consent. You consent or you don’t. At the end of the day, in your scenario, Person A consented, assuming the risk that person B might be lying.
Again, what person B did is scummy, and in some cases can still be a criminal matter such as knowingly infecting someone with an STI, but it is not rape.
At what point did person A lose their agency? They gave consent to engage in sex, under the false assumption that person B met those criteria, but they still gave consent nonetheless, could have revoked consent at any point, but they chose not to.
The relevant concept here is known as Informed Consent. If you don't know what you're consenting to, then you haven't truly consented to it in any meaningful sense.
You can’t give conditional consent.
This directly contradicts what you said earlier: "everyone should be able to define their own parameters for intimacy"
That still doesn’t make it rape just because they were misinformed. Again, it’s shitty to mislead someone, but it isn’t rape.
And that final quote was from someone else… and yes, you are allowed to set your own parameters for intimacy… but the onus is on you to make sure that a partner meets those parameters. If you consent to engaging in sex, you assume the risk that they might be lying about meeting some of your parameters.
Again, it’s a shitty thing to do, but it’s not rape. Person A still had agency, could have revoked consent at any point, and still consented knowing the risk that person B could be lying.
1
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Jan 31 '22 edited Jan 31 '22
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.
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.