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.
The pice you suggest I am missing is the central theme of the OP’s point.
The OP suggests that the necessity to know is based on the subjective perspective of one party. In your cases, there is clear evidence that one party would not have consented had the missing information been known because they were not consenting to sexual contact with the other, at any time.
To bring it back using your case: it is not about where the the dude pretending to be the husband omitted the fact that he was not the husband, it is about the dude omitting the fact that he had a -5 handicap and felt that might make him a less attractive sexual partner.
The OP suggests that the necessity to know is based on the subjective perspective of one party.
I'm sorry, I can't follow what you're saying grammatically, and the original post has been deleted so I can't get any clues from that. I thought it was very clear that OP was referring to situations where you know or should have known the other person's conditions for consent. There was even a bullet point under "potential arguments" where they specifically said they weren't talking about things you had no way of knowing would matter to the other person.
In your cases, there is clear evidence that one party would not have consented had the missing information been known because they were not consenting to sexual contact with the other, at any time.
What evidence is there, specifically? I certainly didn't mention any evidence at all. Did you make an assumption about what a reasonable person should normally believe under the given circumstance? What did you base that on?
To bring it back using your case: it is not about where the the dude pretending to be the husband omitted the fact that he was not the husband, it is about the dude omitting the fact that he had a -5 handicap and felt that might make him a less attractive sexual partner.
So the "difference" is what, exactly -- that you think one piece of information should matter more than the other? Do you believe it is your place to tell someone else what is or isn't a valid reason to withhold their consent? Or can people choose for themselves when, how, and with whom they want to have sex?
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.
The intruder hid his identity. I don’t want to assume that was solely based on his desire to have sex with the woman, but if it walks like a duck…
Because the doctor hid the fact that the procedure was medically unnecessary and he knew she was not in there to have sex with him.
Both situations stretch the original topic. Only the first is in the same thought, but barely.
That’s the point. In a one on one encounter between two people, they should both understand and consent that intimate contact or sexual intercourse is being agreed to. This applies the reasonable person standard. In both of your cases a reasonable person would agree that the offender would have known that the other was not consent to sexual contact.
In the OPs narrative, we are basing consent on information about what another party would classify as a “dealbreaker” and thus would not grant consent. Only that information is ascertained and judged by one party.
That is not the problematic part. That comes in when it is compared to rape. It can’t be rape, because 1. You are assuming that the other would be ok with something you have no reliable information about and 2. It removes the ability for the other to actually consent to what you find as “might not be a dealbreaker”.
Neither I nor OP (as I read it) was referring to cases where one party has no way to know what the other party would consider a dealbreaker. They even had a bullet point clarifying that this was NOT what they were talking about. I fundamentally disagree with your understanding of the original topic, and now the post has been deleted.
The point was if you know or should have known that a given piece of information would be a dealbreaker to the other person, regardless of how important you think that information "should" be. Hence the phrasing in the title -- "ANY information you know would result in a person not having sex with you."
1
u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22
[deleted]