Is consent is an overused focus?

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

I think rape by deception is bullshit as long as no one was harmed.

Ranging from lying about your salary all the way to pretending to be a woman?

 

[オプセック]

Ranging from lying about your salary all the way to pretending to be a woman?

I guess so, if you made her pregnant and turn out to be a dead beat on parole, but stated you are billionaire who's going to marry her, that would pose an actual conundrum regarding the harm-question, indeed.

 

[Mnutu]

I guess so, if you made her pregnant and turn out to be a dead beat on parole, but stated you are billionaire who's going to marry her, that would pose an actual conundrum regarding the harm-question, indeed.

Nah, that’s on the woman for being deceived and tricked. At some point, her agency has to be acknowledged and it’s her fault for being retarded and believing him. Sexual Assault and Rape should only be for the acts in which the person being assaulted definitively did not want to engage in the act nor were in a reasonable state to reject it (I.e. drugged or unconscious).

For example, if an 18 year old woman with no mental disability or severe impairment, agrees to go drinking with a 27 year old guy and they only have sex after he plies her with alcohol and small lies; that wasn’t rape. In the same way, a woman that breaks up with her boyfriend after two years of a totally consensual yet alcohol fueled relationship cannot retrospectively declare all the sex they had rape. Even if he had lied about loving her and intentionally enabled her alcoholism, it can’t be rape.

We have to view sex in a manner like a transaction or a trade deal; deception, social coercion, and manipulation in trades are NOT CRIMINAL OFFENSES, but Civil Offenses. Robbery and physical coercion are Criminal Offenses. If someone is deceived, socially coerced, or manipulated into sex, it wasn’t rape or sexual assault, but something else that indicates the person who tricked them are complete pieces of shit. If they are drugged, beaten, or threatened into sex, that is absolutely rape and sexual assault.

I’m not too keen on this line of thinking because it reduces the act of sex to something lesser than it should be, and especially the emotional, mental, and spiritual damage that act can cause. However, we treat Divorce even in cases of infidelity in Civil Courts. Maybe instead of thinking it as diminishing the severity of that act by putting it in Civil Courts, we should be elevating the tragedy and awfulness of divorce. Or something.

 

[Toothp!ck]

I remember for Freshman orientation we were getting a talk that was mostly directed at the boys. The (fat) women lecturing us mainly talked about how if you've got consent to kiss you don't have consent to touch so ask. If you have consent to touch you don't have consent to start undressing, so ask. And so on. Like you cant even change your thrusting rhythm without asking least you be called a rapist. Fuck of these people would take the fun out of life.

 

[draggs]

Consent (or lack thereof) is like obscenity - can't define it perfectly, but you know it when you see it

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

I think you are cave-beast pilled

You are ESLpilled o algo

 

[オプセック]

You are ESLpilled o algo

No, no, I didn't mean it like that. I was doing the retard thing where the pill is changed out with whatever it reveals, instead of another thing doing the revelating.
Never would I accuse a fellow hyperboeran rights champion of cave-beast-ism. You are probably right on the esl front tho - won't confirm, nor deny.

I’m not too keen on this line of thinking because it reduces the act of sex to something lesser than it should be, and especially the emotional, mental, and spiritual damage that act can cause. However, we treat Divorce even in cases of infidelity in Civil Courts. Maybe instead of thinking it as diminishing the severity of that act by putting it in Civil Courts, we should be elevating the tragedy and awfulness of divorce. Or something.

Yeah, that's basically my train of thought with the half assed pregnancy example I put out. The harm has to be assessed.
I think there are LOTS of nothing-burger divorces too.
And they should be still treated as such, but divorces where there are kids and the home is completely broken as a result, should probably staked higher.

 

[3deadniggers]

Has any one ever tried the consent bullshit with a woman? A normal woman would think you're trolling right?

 

[Hooked on phobics]

Bumping purely because THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!!

TLDR an anti natalist bombed a fertility clinic to protest life itself because he didn't "consent" to be born

 

[Lurkin' 'n' Jerkin']

There's another crazy one for this thread:
I think rape by deception is bullshit as long as no one was harmed.

As I understand it, the actual legal meaning of rape by deception is when somebody pretends to be some other, specific person to trick somebody into having sex, and not when he pretends to be a different kind of person who possesses different features than his true self. The classic example being when Alice is married to Sam, but one night while Sam is gone his neighbor John sneaks into their darkened bedroom and somehow convinces Alice that he is actually Sam, who then agrees to have sex with him. I think it is fair and proper to call that kind of deception rape, as Alice would have never had sex with John, no matter what kind of guy John is; she wanted to and thought she was having sex with Sam. Unfortunately, the term has been abused to cover regretful sex where a woman is resentful she was tricked about what kind of person she was having sex with, but fundamentally not tricked about who she was having sex with. If Jane has sex with John because John told her he was a millionaire who was deeply in love with and wished to marry her, that is caddishness and seduction, and evil in its own right, but not rape.

One problem with boiling everything down to consent is that it flattens our vocabulary for discussing how sexual encounters can be bad, and what kinds of evil behaviors people engage in sexually. It's part of a wish to posit all sex as an unalloyed good that we should pursue as much as we can, so when people clearly still experience many bad outcomes and bad feelings from their sexual encounters, the only thing they can do is describe it as nonconsensual, as rape is the only thing distinct from (good) sex. We end up with post hoc wheels-within-wheels justifications to redefine all bad sexual encounters as somehow being about consent, when it would be more accurate and descriptive to use the older, traditional vocabulary. We cannot say, "That cad seduced that naive woman," so we have to say, "There was a power imbalance in the relationship, so her consent was impaired" (which can be said about literally every relationship ever, as with any two people one party is always going to be the older or richer or less emotionally invested one or what have you).

 

[Hooked on phobics]

As I understand it, the actual legal meaning of rape by deception is when somebody pretends to be some other, specific person to trick somebody into having sex, and not when he pretends to be a different kind of person who possesses different features than his true self. The classic example being when Alice is married to Sam, but one night while Sam is gone his neighbor John sneaks into their darkened bedroom and somehow convinces Alice that he is actually Sam, who then agrees to have sex with him. I think it is fair and proper to call that kind of deception rape, as Alice would have never had sex with John, no matter what kind of guy John is; she wanted to and thought she was having sex with Sam. Unfortunately, the term has been abused to cover regretful sex where a woman is resentful she was tricked about what kind of person she was having sex with, but fundamentally not tricked about who she was having sex with. If Jane has sex with John because John told her he was a millionaire who was deeply in love with and wished to marry her, that is caddishness and seduction, and evil in its own right, but not rape.

Some of this reminds me of what null said in a recent stream regarding saberspark, and how his accuser seemed to want a relationship at first and forgave the rape at first but being friendzoned is what REALLY hit home, and she got upset

I think this is also a more common thing too, like people tend to think rape is 100% defined by if a woman is upset / persuing doing something about it, but I think thats too simplistic, plus it doesn't match the definition anyway. Women CAN end up forgiving it for some reason even when it blatantly abusive / "rapey", and theres times where perhaps an individual relationship isn't seemingly effected by an instance, but its still catagorically a woman not giving consent, the man still going anyway. But then that gets into if the woman herself thinks her "no" is really something to worry about if its not said with enough fervor? And no, I don't mean "games" where a woman has a coy smile saying "no" but she wants it. I mean her not wanting it, but it happens, and its shrugged off because of context making it forgivable(to her)? (I guess???)

I struggle to wrap my guy head around some of it, I think MAYBE I understand some, but its like BARELY grasping a foreign language

 

[skykiii]

hell, people support SRS which is a horrific monstrosity people seem to be desensitized conceptually about

System Requirement Sections are a horrific monstrosity?

Yeah seriously I had to google this and "System Requirement Sections" was the first hit I got.

 

[23iwakura23]

I don't necessarily come to some of the same conclusions you do, but I do think "consent" is overhyped.

Reason I say this is because the idea seems to follow from the "you create your own reality" trope, which fails to comprehend objective reality. As if we "consent" to the manner of being we exist in.

Some acts have to be done through necessity and not mere consent, though.