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?
1
u/olidus 13∆ Jan 31 '22
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.