Okay, apparently y’all…I’m a serial rapist or something along those lines, and I need to be locked up in the deepest pit of Attica for the numerous atrocities I’ve committed. Well, actually, I suppose that’s not true if, you know, only men can be offenders.
I should’ve known better than to scream unto the heavens for a plan, eh?
I should’ve known better than to scream unto the heavens for a plan, eh?
Well, see, according to Heart, who feels free to quote me at will when it suits her purpose, so hey, I’ll return the favor and all…I’m a serial sexual predator and have thusly raped countless unwitting men, who might not have consented to having sex with me, if they had but known!
Check it-
Here are some thoughts that come to my mind so far as situations where a woman possibly might not have consented to sex had she known the truth, and which I believe would “vitiate” any consent she had given ahead of time:
-The person had a STD; -um, nope
- The person was married or had one or more sexual partners; - um, yep. Both actually…what, failure to be monogamous is criminal?
-The person had a history of criminal violence against animals, women or others; - that, apparently, depends on who you ask…
- The person had a history of molestation of a child or of incest;- nope
-The person had a history of rape or sexual assault; - once again, probably depends on who you ask…
- The person had a history of sexual harassment –er, could be…no one's ever actually complained...
-The person was a drug abuser;- nope, but shit, does one need give every detail about their past or present before randomly fucking? Shit, you'd think the woman honestly believed no one has casual sex these days!
-The person was a felon;- Convicted or not? I mean, Lucky says I’m a felon…
-In the case of a lesbian, the other person was not born female;- Er, how about if they are a “born female” but aren't really a lesbian, but really, really horny? I mean, I have a dick, it’s rubber, but I do have one…
-In the case of a heterosexual woman, the other person was not born male- huh, never been faced with that situation…
-The person had living, underage children- Wait, what, people with kids can’t have one night stands? Oh my. That’s it, all you single parents, get thee to a nunnery / monastery!
-The person had a terminal illness- that’s it, no sport fucking for you ill people either! What if they lied about having a terminal illness to get laid? Oh, and you do realize, we all suffer from a 100% fatal sexually transmitted disease: it’s called LIFE.
-The person was not who he held himself out to be in ways which were significant, i.e., he said he was an unmarried entrepreneur named Bill Gates when in fact he was an unemployed, married, used car salesman named Mergatroid Schmidlap. This kind of thing would be particularly useful in instances where men meet women on the internet and go from woman to woman across the country “marrying” each one using different names, ripping them off, sometimes killing them, and then moving on to the next victim. These guys can always claim the woman “consented”.- Hey, Schmidlap sounds Jewish…is that an anti-Semitic comment? And oh my, lying to get laid is now cause for legal action? Women never scam dudes on the net? Shit, if we think we have overcrowded prisons now…I once told a dude I was a waitress on vacation from Miami when I really was only like two hours away, but I only wanted to fuck him once…guilty?
-The person uses prostituted women- Er…I don’t use them per say, but well, what if…never mind.
-The person goes to strip bars- FUCK! SHIT! Strippers, male and female, don’t ever get to have sex now! Nor do the DJ’s, wait staff, bartenders, managers, and bouncers who work there!
-The person uses pornography- Well, shit. I “use” porn all the time. I guess I only ever get to have sex when making it now..probably not then either...
-The person is into bdsm or has other sexual fetishes. Well, I don’t usually tell dudes I’m into chokeholds and like the idea of doing him up the ass with a strap on and all kinds of other weird shit on the first date…not even always after the first intimate encounter…sigh. I’ll choose firing squad as my method of execution, please. No hood. I want to see it coming.
So there is a partial list of lies I think would “vitiate” consent. Note that they do not include the guy’s profession, job, or income level or his having said, “I will marry you” or his having proclaimed a woman to have been the most beautiful woman in the world. The idea that women are all about this kind of lie is a male fiction. (It’s also about males competing with males; i.e., male pissing matches–this kind of stuff really has little to do with how women decide who they will have relationships or sex with).
Check it-
Here are some thoughts that come to my mind so far as situations where a woman possibly might not have consented to sex had she known the truth, and which I believe would “vitiate” any consent she had given ahead of time:
-The person had a STD; -um, nope
- The person was married or had one or more sexual partners; - um, yep. Both actually…what, failure to be monogamous is criminal?
-The person had a history of criminal violence against animals, women or others; - that, apparently, depends on who you ask…
- The person had a history of molestation of a child or of incest;- nope
-The person had a history of rape or sexual assault; - once again, probably depends on who you ask…
- The person had a history of sexual harassment –er, could be…no one's ever actually complained...
-The person was a drug abuser;- nope, but shit, does one need give every detail about their past or present before randomly fucking? Shit, you'd think the woman honestly believed no one has casual sex these days!
-The person was a felon;- Convicted or not? I mean, Lucky says I’m a felon…
-In the case of a lesbian, the other person was not born female;- Er, how about if they are a “born female” but aren't really a lesbian, but really, really horny? I mean, I have a dick, it’s rubber, but I do have one…
-In the case of a heterosexual woman, the other person was not born male- huh, never been faced with that situation…
-The person had living, underage children- Wait, what, people with kids can’t have one night stands? Oh my. That’s it, all you single parents, get thee to a nunnery / monastery!
-The person had a terminal illness- that’s it, no sport fucking for you ill people either! What if they lied about having a terminal illness to get laid? Oh, and you do realize, we all suffer from a 100% fatal sexually transmitted disease: it’s called LIFE.
-The person was not who he held himself out to be in ways which were significant, i.e., he said he was an unmarried entrepreneur named Bill Gates when in fact he was an unemployed, married, used car salesman named Mergatroid Schmidlap. This kind of thing would be particularly useful in instances where men meet women on the internet and go from woman to woman across the country “marrying” each one using different names, ripping them off, sometimes killing them, and then moving on to the next victim. These guys can always claim the woman “consented”.- Hey, Schmidlap sounds Jewish…is that an anti-Semitic comment? And oh my, lying to get laid is now cause for legal action? Women never scam dudes on the net? Shit, if we think we have overcrowded prisons now…I once told a dude I was a waitress on vacation from Miami when I really was only like two hours away, but I only wanted to fuck him once…guilty?
-The person uses prostituted women- Er…I don’t use them per say, but well, what if…never mind.
-The person goes to strip bars- FUCK! SHIT! Strippers, male and female, don’t ever get to have sex now! Nor do the DJ’s, wait staff, bartenders, managers, and bouncers who work there!
-The person uses pornography- Well, shit. I “use” porn all the time. I guess I only ever get to have sex when making it now..probably not then either...
-The person is into bdsm or has other sexual fetishes. Well, I don’t usually tell dudes I’m into chokeholds and like the idea of doing him up the ass with a strap on and all kinds of other weird shit on the first date…not even always after the first intimate encounter…sigh. I’ll choose firing squad as my method of execution, please. No hood. I want to see it coming.
So there is a partial list of lies I think would “vitiate” consent. Note that they do not include the guy’s profession, job, or income level or his having said, “I will marry you” or his having proclaimed a woman to have been the most beautiful woman in the world. The idea that women are all about this kind of lie is a male fiction. (It’s also about males competing with males; i.e., male pissing matches–this kind of stuff really has little to do with how women decide who they will have relationships or sex with).
Oh, so it DOES only apply to men…whew. I’m so glad that equality is always in the forefront of so much feminist thinking! I guess that leaves me free to continue to violate and rape men at will.
edit: "When I say “fetish,” I am talking about things like raping animals (and calling it “sex with” animals), sadomasochism, that kind of thing. Do most reasonable people want to have sex with someone who routinely or even in the past has had sex with animals? Do most women want to get involved with, say, some piece of work man who likes to lead women around on leashes or chain them to his bed?" -Heart
Gahh, cause yeah, bondage is exactly like fucking what? Chickens?
Edit 2- I mean really, here's a question...I meet Random Dude and hey, without a great deal of conversation, we decide to have consenting sex, both of us sober, safer sex practices, all that...yet, you know, we never got around to asking what the other does for a living...should I be obligated to tell him psst, I do porn and stuff? You see where this goes? Should a woman be obligated to say she'd had an abortion? What if either one of them eats meat, is religion X, is in the military, has a sexual based job, so on, so forth...these all might be things that would cause someone not to sleep with another person...do we need to carry around fact sheets now or something? Honesty in an actual relationship=good, but a casual hook up? Hell, half the people don't even give up their real names...
My mind is boggled.
42 comments:
-The person had a terminal illness- that’s it, no sport fucking for you ill people either! What if they lied about having a terminal illness to get laid? Oh, and you do realize, we all suffer from a 100% fatal sexually transmitted disease: it’s called LIFE.
no no, "death" is a patriarchal construct. unavoidable, because the Patrix consumes all and you can't get away from it; but if you clap your hands and BELIEVE real hard, if we all do it at once then, ah then...
oh, you're not even -trying-, you sellout.
"It's wasn't enough. You didn't clap hard enough. Tinkerbell's
dead."
I agree that a lot of Heart's examples sound far-fetched (and are somewhat telling - seriously, transphobic and BDSM-phobic much?), because they're not criteria most people would care about. I don't think that the point was that if you were these things, you were a rapist; rather, it's that if you *lie* about them as a way to prevent your partner from making an informed decision about sex with you, you're arguably a rapist.
What it comes down to is this - if your partner knew the truth, would he/she still want to have sex with you? If you suspect the answer might be know, and withhold the truth in hopes of getting laid, then something's fucked up and quibbling over whether that particular end run around consent constitutes rape isn't going to change that.
The most idiotic, ridiculous, matronizing bullshit I have EVER READ from Heart, which is saying something.
And will someone tell me what terminal illnesses are doing on the list? Some man with Lou Gehrig's disease or whatever isn't allowed to have sex with a woman if he doesn't tell her about it? Does SHE have to disclose her health history too, or is that just the men? And WHY? Isn't that singling out people with illnesses for prejudicial treatment? That's rape, too?
Disgusting able-bodiest shit from Heart, who knew she was like that?
And why are underage children on the list? A man with underage children has sex with a woman, doesn't TELL HER he has children (why should he, unless she is going to babysit them?) and he is guilty of "sex torts"?
She's lost her fucking mind. Or, she is confusing full-grown women with 11-year-olds who need BIG DADDY-STATE PROTECTION (which is Patriarchy in extremis), while throwing in generous doses of her Calvinist prejudices, such as that all sex must lead to relationships. (Otherwise, who cares what people know or don't know?)
Focus on the Family would heartily approve of this list.
You sure she's not STILL working for them? She must be.
jpf: part of the reason I generally feel that talking to people a whole lot before fucking them is so over rated...
why does that list of gotchas remind me so much of the medieval safe sex flowchart? ...
All I can think of to say is that I'm impressed that she actually posted comments from people who disagreed, including someone who claimed that women have fetishes.
Could she be learning something?
You folks have touched on most of them, and I especially find the "not born X", or "not born Y", "underage kids" pretty appalling.
What I enjoy though is this juxtaposition:
If a guy says he is Bill Gates but he is really a "Schmidlap" it's rape, however,
Note that they do not include the guy’s profession, job, or income level
P.S. Who says that women only want to fuck for money? Oh. Heart does. Why does Heart hate women?
Wow...even *I* would fail. But I won't tell you how.
This is potentially the most asinine thing I've ever heard... And, seriously, if we all went by her rules... When has anyone ever had casual sex and that *didn't* count as rape?
I've never seen anything quite this idiotic from the radical feminists. And, you know, leave it to them to *water down the definition of rape* so that it's completely meaningless.
Oh FFS. Can these people please get the drama under control!?
"The person had a STD"
What??
I'm sorry, that makes no sense.
You can't consent to sex if you have an STD. Um. Er...
Why??
part of the reason I generally feel that talking to people a whole lot before fucking them is so over rated...
Indeed, that's one way to avoid misrepresentation. (Well, I'd personally there's still some default assumptions that, if they don't hold, should be cleared up - if you're in a monogamous relationship and cheating, for example.)
Amber: I think it's not that you can't consent to sex if you have an STD; rather, it's that it doesn't count as consent if your partner fails to tell you he/she has an STD if that's a deal-breaker for you.
JPF- some of this is just so absurd... In VA, a speeding ticket where you are X amount of miles over the limit is a FELONY...humm, great reason not to have sex with someone, and VITAL information to give up right away, right? Same goes for a lot of this crap...Let's see how much we can trivialize rape, really...pfft.
Amber: I think it's not that you can't consent to sex if you have an STD; rather, it's that it doesn't count as consent if your partner fails to tell you he/she has an STD if that's a deal-breaker for you.
Ohhhh okay.
So, not only is in nonsensical in its actual meaning, it's totally unclear, too.
But, yeah. See, that kind of thing pisses me off. It reinforces this idea of "STD, ewwww, OMG, untouchable, gross!" Sex pox indeed. Hello, not all STDs will kill you. Lots of people in relationships have things like, oh, herpes for example... it's really not a big deal. For adults.
This is just so offensive (and upsetting) to survivors of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse, because like kristin said it waters down the definition of rape to meaninglessness.
Does no woman-identified-woman have casual sex? Because unless someone is absolutely in line with Heart's standards, there's going to be a whole lot of explaining before sex. And as far as trans people having to disclose - I'm calling out cisgendered privilege on that one, especially when no one ever says that cis persons have to disclose as such before sex.
And where do we draw the line for what is BDSM or a sexual fetish...one person's vanilla is another's kink is another's squick.
Trinity: I'm guessing that she either ignores the existence of leatherdykes, or waves them away as not "real" women, then, if she doesn't believe women have fetishes?
This kind of falls under I can't even agree to disagree. This attitude of 'Heart' is insane; I don't know how any rational person could ever support such insanity.
holyfuckingshit.
Yeah, I saw that too.
I think, under this definition, 80-90% of people have been "rapists" at some point.
The person was not who he held himself out to be in ways which were significant, i.e., he said he was a feminist-friendly, sharing-and-caring, Age-of-Aquarius type of dude when in fact he was a violent, embittered fundamentalist who expected you to produce a small army of babies to work his fields and fill the pews in his Chapel of Christ-the-Patriarch. That bastard, I'll never forgive him.
I think the point to be taken is not that Heart's list of deal-breakers should be anybody else's list, but that if you know (or, hell, if you even *suspect*) something's a deal-breaker for your partner you've got a duty to tell them.
On the other hand--especially if we're looking at this in terms of tort law and not just as a moral principle--I think that if you've got deal-breakers that aren't predictable (i.e., pretty much everything except STDs and cheating), it's *your* responsibility to let your partner know these are important to you.
I don't think saying "consent obtained via fraud isn't consent" trivializes rape any more than saying sex with someone who's underage is rape trivializes violent rape.
Er, how about if they are a “born female” but aren't really a lesbian
Put it like this: if I slept with someone and then found out that she hadn't wanted and desired me, but was a political lesbian - a straight woman who just wanted to get off without having to deal with a guy - I'd feel pretty fucking violated. I wouldn't take her to court over it, though.
And, the ablism and the transphobia and the... *headdesks at list*
JFP –
I read Heart as saying that anybody who isn't always sure to disclose in advance every single thing on her shitlist to a potential sexual partner, that person is a potential rapist.
Obviously, stuff like lying about STD status to get consent probably should be legally actionable, and I wouldn't be surprised if it already is, at least in some jurisdictions. Likewise other stuff, like posing as a doctor as a ploy to get intimate contact.
Lying if asked about one's porn collection? Maybe not ethically ideal, but seriously, criminal, even felonious? Come on!
And being legally obligated to disclose to every new sexual partner whether you've been with a prostitute before, whether you go to strip clubs, etc, whether they ask about it or not – I call total bullshit on that.
As is typical of Heart, this is absolutely moonbat shit she's peddling, once again. That she's thought of by many as someone with anything positive to contribute is what mystifies me.
jpf, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree, unless it is a serious relationship that is supposedly go somewhere. A casual relationship? No, no duty to disclose everything there.
IACB: If Heart's saying everyone should have that particular list, I'd certainly agree that she's in the wrong.
Ren: Well, obviously we disagree about whether cheating is a personal deal-breaker; I'd tend to suspect that it's a deal-breaker for enough people that the ethical thing to do is disclose it, but that's a question of fact.
One thing that keeps getting elided in the discussions of the original article (and I'm as guilty of this as everyone else) is that there are really two propositions here: the Massachusetts law, which establishes a crime for sex wherein "obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment, or artifice and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception"; and the Deana Pollard article, which is about a civil tort for "interference with sexual autonomy."
jfp; actually, I am almost always very upfront about the fact that I have an S.O., and no need to lie to him about it...I am not at all a fan of people who are fucking around w/out their S.O's knowledge.
So if I, someone who adores fantasy/SciFi, fucks someone who I later find out is one of those Real Literature Readers (tm) they can sue me because they wouldn't have fucked me if they knew I liked such 'low quality' books?
Damn, good thing I wear my fandoms on my sleeve (actually on my keychain, but meh).
Obviously, stuff like lying about STD status to get consent probably should be legally actionable, and I wouldn't be surprised if it already is, at least in some jurisdictions.
There have been a number of successful prosecutions in the UK for Actual Boldily Harm or Grievous Bodily Harm based on someone with an STD knowingly infecting an unwitting partner. There is case law that has established that consent is not valid in such cases.
In the case of a lesbian, the other person was not born female;
In the case of a heterosexual woman, the other person was not born male;
That's right. Because all of us trannies are just big deceivers. But you, Heart, as a "political lesbian" (i.e. straight woman pretending not to be) aren't...riiiiiiiight. I think that Kactus had something to say about that.
The person had a terminal illness
This is beyond totally fucked up. Your partner had cancer. So that makes him/her a rapist.
And I suppose that if a Latin@ or Asian person is light-skinned enough to pass as white and doesn't tell you ... *errnh..errnh* *strobes flash* it's rape.
Heart gets the Kyriarchy Enforcer of the Week award.
Rootie -- I'm dying to know! I have a guess, of course.
IACB - failing to disclose to sex partners if you're HIV+ is a crime in some places. In others it's not a specific crime, but can form a charge of grievous bodily harm or (in already terminal cases) manslaughter or second-degree murder. The only cases I've ever read about were heinously negligent, often involving multiple victims, and I've never read about a case that didn't result in a conviction - hard to know how many were abandoned before they reached court, though.
I've never heard of a prosecution arising from any other STD, though. Anyone?
Based on my reading of the linked post, my understanding of this approach is that it's an extension of principles that are applied to property. While that does have a strong relationship to bodily autonomy, doesn't the full application of that principle effectively eliminate any distinction between the human body and any other "thing?" (I can see the application in medical circumstances, but in those the body effectively does become a "thing." Unfortunately.)
Don't the requirements for disclosure effectively reduce the human mind to a calculating machine, and consent to a spreadsheet formula?
While the intention might be good, one would think that this would qualify as the ultimate form of objectification.
It sounds like "These are my standards. If you can't guess/intuit/telepathizes correctly, you are raping me." - pretty much a passive-aggressive approach.
Octo..you'll just have to guess.
I let my 18 yr old read the list...he was um..."Mom, I'd fail and I've never had sex."
Poor Heart. Doesn't she have some weeds to pull or something? Must she spend time on this drivel?
I *suppose* we should be grateful that she didn't just put "trans people rape you with their very presence" ala Rich.
I think this stuff somewhat makes a mockery of actual sexual assault, and as such is really quite un-feminist. Victims of genuine rape might be a little put out when someone says "Oh, I know how you feel - a man tricked me into sex by telling me he was Bill Gates, but he wasn't Bill Gates at all!"
OK...based on that list that Heart(less) provided, it would be more apropos to ask her this question:
"When is is NOT considered rape when a man and a woman meet and engage in consensual sex??
And...does an explicit statement of consent even apply here?? Or...should a woman be forced to have her man sign a prenuptial contract prior to actually engaging in the deed, just for her "protection"??
And one last thing, Heart: if a self-identified "radical feminist" engages in any of the sort of behavior you would qualify as mitigating "rape", would they be subjected to the same restrictions??
I thought so.
Anthony
Then again, this kind of "most sex should be actionable as rape" mentality is hardly unique to Heart – there's also Twisty's dictum that any time a woman has sex, she should always be presumed to have not given consent unless they specifically state the opposite. Hence the default legal presumption in any sexual act is that it was rape.
And judging by the comments thread and links to it, it seems like a lot of radfems and other feminists subscribe to this view, or at least think it has merit.
"Guilty until proven innocent." How very police state. Personally, I think the optimistic approach - that the vast majority people are not, in fact, evil or out to attack and destroy people - is a much kinder and healthier one. But this is probably because I'm insane.
celia: nailed it. This is how someone in the state of "siege mentality" thinks. Which, I'm sure there are reasons for it? but insisting everyone else in the world must needs feel the same way is...that way literally madness lies. for damn sure I don't want people like this making policy.
IACB
Forgive my obtuseness, but doesn't Twisty's proposal boil down to saying that all heterosexual intercourse is male-on-female rape - but that if the guy involved is very, very, very nice to the woman involved, then maybe she won't prosecute?
The "all heterosex is rape" theme is usually dismissed as an anti-feminist ploy. But, if we are to take TF and her mouseketeers seriously, then we are bound acknowledge that the idea is alive and flourishing amongst well-respected feminists.
Hammer hits nail squarely, Tom.
Oh, and there's an interesting "anti" comment - the penultimate one on the thread - by someone going by the name of E.LaGrene, which looks like a more normal moniker after slight cosmetic alteration. I wonder who it can be?
So, is this just Heart's personal list of things that, had she known about a person she fucked, she would not have consented and thereby canceled that consent? I have my own list of things that, had I known them about a guy or guys, I would never have consented to having sex with them:
*That he was going to cheat on me after a month of dating exclusively.
*That he really wasn't as in to me as I had convinced myself and having sex with him was going to ruin our friendship (although, technically, it was my idea).
*That he was an asshole.
*That he was gay (although, he didn't even know at the time).
Does that kind of shit count? Cause if it doesn't, I don't think anything on Heart's list counts either.
Post a Comment