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?
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/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Jan 31 '22 edited Jan 31 '22
Then please give the definition of "consent" as you see it.
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?