|
On August 03 2013 07:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 06:49 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Because as far as you're concerned there is no cis vs trans distinction. But you don't get to decide their criteria, they do. And if they do make a distinction and have sex with you acting under the assumption that you are cis and you were aware that they made this distinction then you are deceiving them into sex. Consent relies upon equal information. Consent relies on nothing of the sort. And we're back to this one. A guy has a twin who is married. The twins don't know each other as they were adopted separately. His twin's wife doesn't know her husband has a twin. One night the unmarried twin shows up and has sex with his brother's wife. Is it her duty to ask her husband each time "is it you or your twin?" while knowing that he might possibly have a twin but probably doesn't or rather is it reasonable to assume the guy who looks like her husband is her husband. Likewise is it reasonable for the twin to assume that his brother's wife's consent is built on the assumption that he is her husband rather than her husband or his twin or whatever? ...your analogy is fucking horrible, and if this is what you're basing your entire logic on, then your logic is completely out of whack. Rape by impersonation is defined in law, along with consent obtained through impersonation. It is rape, and impersonation does not grant consent. Consent through "failure to disclose turnoffs" is not. Transphobic people believe that trans people are impersonating cis people. Doesn't matter if they're right or not, if that's their condition for consent and you are reasonably sure that that is their condition for consent and reasonably sure they think you're cis, you tell them. But they are still a singular person. Twins are not. Not even close. No matter what information you fail to disclose to a possible sex partner, you are still asking them to have sex with you. Your twin analogy sucks. Please stop. I'm not convinced you understood it. Twin 2 is asking twin 1s wife for sex with him, the singular. The wife is then making a reasonable assumption about who she is about to fuck. Twin 2 knows that this assumption is not true but he doesn't care because he wants to fuck and anyway, if he asks she might have a problem with fucking people who aren't her husband and get mad and hurt him. And what's he meant to do, not get laid? Rape by impersonation. That has a definition that you can actually look up, and I highly suggest you start caring about words and phrases actually mean outside of your own imagination. And transphobic people believe that their trans partner is impersonating a cis person. This is circular. The analogy holds. DEFINITION. LOOK IT UP.
Could you provide a particular definition that you want to discuss? If its anything like most legal terms there are probably a few different ones and it helps to have the same starting point.
|
United States41961 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc. Ill just quote myself: Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe or a rapist. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game. The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Technically trans people who don't state their status aren't doing this, because they actually don't know that the other person doesn't want to have sex with them on that basis. They know that it is plausible that if they told their partner such a thing, it could change their mind. That's not the same as rape at all. It's still wrong, but it's not rape anymore than cheating on your girlfriend is rape.
Indeed. The example where they definitely know that consent hinges upon the information they have and choose not to disclose it for the purpose of obtaining sex that would not otherwise be had is, in my opinion, rape. We then work backwards from there applying a standard of reasonable assumptions. If the person was 99% sure consent hinged upon this one fact then still pretty rapey. 10% sure, not so rapey. I don't believe I ever argued that all cases of a trans not disclosing were rape. I have given a large number of examples, for example a hookup at a LGBT event, in which disclosure would not be needed at all.
|
On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally.
Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane.
Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff.
Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE!
Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE!
Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently.
|
United States41961 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc. Ill just quote myself: Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe or a rapist. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game. The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive.
Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves.
|
On August 03 2013 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. ...so basically your argument is that transexuals should assume no one ever wants to have sex with them. ...this hole just keeps getting deeper.
That is not at all what Kwark said. This is stupid.
|
United States41961 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently.
The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example.
|
On August 03 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc. Ill just quote myself: Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe or a rapist. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game. The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive. Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves.
Your arguments have been awful. Your language has been inexcusable. You shame yourself. I on the other hand have always disclosed everything to anyone because I think it's the right thing to do and still think you're being an asshole.
|
On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example.
So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"?
I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that.
|
On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example.
But you ignored my valid example. The incidence of being a transphobe/racist being a dealbreaker is higher than average. Aren't you technically a rapist for sleeping with people and not disclosing that information, despite KNOWING that there is a high chance that this is a dealbreaker? You should know that most people aren't okay with that stuff. By your own logic, a transphobe sleeping with a trans woman is a rapist. I would never consent to sleeping with a racist or transphobe, and the vast majority of people I know would not either.
|
On August 03 2013 07:20 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example. So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"? I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that.
The less common something is, the more reasonable someone is in believing that you do not have that trait, and the more responsible you are for telling them.
|
On August 03 2013 07:00 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:56 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:54 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:50 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 06:48 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:42 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:38 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:28 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid?
According to several male cis posters it's the girl's job to do the thinking during sex. Need to make sure the boys don't end up doing something their tiny minds might regret after all. Nope, applies both ways. Stop trying to paint me as a sexist, my disgust from you come from my feminist convictions about consent being really important. Your disgust is ignorant and incredibly abhorrent. Consent, consent, consent, in a world of fake boobs and tanning booths you're stuck on a medical issue that is really none of your business and accusing us of keeping 'vital' information from you. It's a body modification just like fake boobs and a nose job yet it's somehow not rape if you fuck someone with fake boobs and a nose job without realizing it. Firstly, just none of my business. I don't actually have a problem with trans women vs cis women, both women to me. Stop trying to brand me with slurs that don't apply. Secondly, becomes the business of a transphobe about the time you ask them for consent. None of their business before. Is their business after. See the distinction? Thirdly, if fake boobs were a dealbreaker for a large number of people I would absolutely expect disclosure. There is no double standard here so stop trying that avenue, it doesn't go anywhere. Well you're not getting disclosure and I'm definitely not a rapist for refusing to tell you. I've been beaten enough times to have made up my mind. Something doesn't become moral simply because the outcome is inconvenient. If someone asked would you tell them? Would you lie? Being beaten is a bit more than inconvenient don't you think? If they asked I'd probably try to brush it off and find out if they're transphobic enough to put me in danger. I'm not going to have sex with someone that has a chance of hurting me but I also won't give out that information on the fly. So inconvenient that it takes priority over whatever dealbreakers they might have on who they have sex with? Because it inconveniences your getting laid... The rights of everyone else are not obstacles to be ignored when you wanna fuck. And then it suddenly becomes my job to be the all magical seer of people's kinks and kink-outs. If you want to talk about total disclosure do it on a dating site but it shouldn't be expected during a hookup.
Honestly, it's mostly about your own knowledge and your own morality on how to apply that knowledge. If you were truly unaware that most people would consider having sex with a trans which they perceived to be cis (because statistically that's simply what they expect and I agree with this point) as something they would consider to be dealbreaker (even if their reasons IMO are wrong and somewhat bigoted, I agree with you there), that's fine. But if you realize that it is likely to be the case just because you happen to be a statistical outlier (just like someone who is married should probably be aware that a large % of population wouldn't want to bang someone who is married), bringing it up is an honest thing to do. Personally? I don't think you need to do it and I don't care if you do. It's on your own conscience of how you think about this.
IMO this is the case of "if you know more you have to deal with more shit if you want to remain moral".
If I had a quality most people would consider to be a dealbreaker and I was aware they would back out provided they knew about that quality and I was a moral person, I would feel the need to tell them about it. I think that's the whole point.
|
On August 03 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc. Ill just quote myself: Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe or a rapist. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game. The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive. Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves.
talking about unjustified generalisation.
|
On August 03 2013 07:15 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 06:49 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Consent relies on nothing of the sort. And we're back to this one. A guy has a twin who is married. The twins don't know each other as they were adopted separately. His twin's wife doesn't know her husband has a twin. One night the unmarried twin shows up and has sex with his brother's wife. Is it her duty to ask her husband each time "is it you or your twin?" while knowing that he might possibly have a twin but probably doesn't or rather is it reasonable to assume the guy who looks like her husband is her husband. Likewise is it reasonable for the twin to assume that his brother's wife's consent is built on the assumption that he is her husband rather than her husband or his twin or whatever? ...your analogy is fucking horrible, and if this is what you're basing your entire logic on, then your logic is completely out of whack. Rape by impersonation is defined in law, along with consent obtained through impersonation. It is rape, and impersonation does not grant consent. Consent through "failure to disclose turnoffs" is not. Transphobic people believe that trans people are impersonating cis people. Doesn't matter if they're right or not, if that's their condition for consent and you are reasonably sure that that is their condition for consent and reasonably sure they think you're cis, you tell them. But they are still a singular person. Twins are not. Not even close. No matter what information you fail to disclose to a possible sex partner, you are still asking them to have sex with you. Your twin analogy sucks. Please stop. I'm not convinced you understood it. Twin 2 is asking twin 1s wife for sex with him, the singular. The wife is then making a reasonable assumption about who she is about to fuck. Twin 2 knows that this assumption is not true but he doesn't care because he wants to fuck and anyway, if he asks she might have a problem with fucking people who aren't her husband and get mad and hurt him. And what's he meant to do, not get laid? Rape by impersonation. That has a definition that you can actually look up, and I highly suggest you start caring about words and phrases actually mean outside of your own imagination. And transphobic people believe that their trans partner is impersonating a cis person. This is circular. The analogy holds. DEFINITION. LOOK IT UP. Could you provide a particular definition that you want to discuss? If its anything like most legal terms there are probably a few different ones and it helps to have the same starting point.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impersonation
The first link I Googled, and I doubt it's applicable to every written law. But, more or less, it's only impersonation if you're framing yourself as another individual. Apparently in some cases fictitious identities are actually legal, but I doubt that stands up under all laws.
Regardless, at no point does a failure to disclose physical/mental/personal traits constitute impersonation.
|
United States41961 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:20 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc. Ill just quote myself: Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe or a rapist. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game. The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive. Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves. Your arguments have been awful. Your language has been inexcusable. You shame yourself. I on the other hand have always disclosed everything to anyone because I think it's the right thing to do and still think you're being an asshole.
All I ask is that if someone, anyone, trans or not, believes that their partner's consent is based upon an assumption which is not true but which is so unlikely that their partner has no reason to ask that specific question then they disclose the fact so as to avoid obtaining sex where consent would not be granted otherwise. It is a universal standard which does not change, even if it makes your life inconvenient, even if you don't like their assumption, even if you think you know better. A number of trans people have argued that transphobic people don't have the right to choose who they have sex with because their criteria are dumb, meaningless or just "life is hard as a trans person".
|
United States41961 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:20 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example. So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"? I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that.
Before you shit on someone, yeah, you should. I'm confused by that example. You should absolutely check if someone wants you to shit on them before you do it.
|
On August 03 2013 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. ...so basically your argument is that transexuals should assume no one ever wants to have sex with them. ...this hole just keeps getting deeper.
yo we made this assertion 10s of pages ago
super sad about it
|
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors?
|
On August 03 2013 07:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:20 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example. So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"? I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that. Before you shit on someone, yeah, you should. I'm confused by that example. You should absolutely check if someone wants you to shit on them before you do it.
I'm not talking about the act itself. I'm just saying that if person has a physical or mental trait or preference you consider a turnoff, it's hardly rape or rapey if you have sex with them without knowing it.
I can't stand racists, but I wouldn't consider it rape if I had sex with a someone who was actually a rapist.
|
On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors?
I wasn't aware that people who are "done" transitioning consider themselves to no longer be trans. Am I misinformed on this?
|
On August 03 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:42 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:37 farvacola wrote:On August 03 2013 06:28 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 06:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote:But when she's a trans person, oh holy shit now it's rape by deceit! Fuck you people, it's not about withholding information, it's about her being trans and you being a bigot. Wait. I thought Kwarik was freaking out and everyone was politely telling him to calm down. Now I'm a bigot because I want to sleep with cis women. Go figure. The last time they did they got beat up. In public? coming out as trans isn't always something that happens in public. Picture this. You're at his place, you've been kissing, you both want to go further, but you decide to let them know "there's something I want to tell you first". Next thing you know he's hitting you, calling you a freak, etc. It can get ugly fast, and its a problem that a lot of trans people have to deal with. Uhhhh, why would you ever go home with someone before having this conversation? Seriously. Wtf. Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid? According to several male cis posters it's the girl's job to do the thinking during sex. Need to make sure the boys don't end up doing something their tiny minds might regret after all. Actually, this is your position. By not giving men the opportunity for consent, you are effectively taking total reign over the implications of intimacy. Your definition ends up being the only thing that matters. They have the opportunity of consent and I have my privacy. They pick me up at the bar, what they see is what they get, and we fuck and that's it. Because as far as you're concerned there is no cis vs trans distinction. But you don't get to decide their criteria, they do. And if they do make a distinction and have sex with you acting under the assumption that you are cis and you were aware that they made this distinction then you are deceiving them into sex. Consent relies upon equal information.
So what is the other person consenting to, that knowledge of previous genitals is important? A dick is a dick is a dick. Full disclosure and lying are not opposites.
Like, I don't want to fuck jerks. But do they tell me they are jerks? No. Cause they are jerks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
