|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:57 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that. But that doesn't make you a rapist.
The rapist point was in response to you arguing that only physical consequences matter and that you can do whatever you want with a person sexually as long as they don't know. That even if they would never consent to sex with a trans woman and you knew that it didn't matter that you knew that their consent was not informed consent and that they didn't actually want to have sex with you because "fuck that guy". As long as they weren't physically damaged by your withholding then no harm done, whatever their feelings of violation etc might be.
What you said in that particular post was really rapey and rode roughshod over the principles of consent.
|
On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape.
Well that is sort of the point, indifference to the emotions of the other party for your own personal pleasure. Consent doesn't matter, because according to the argument, the emotions of bigots are their problem. It isn't a great analogy, but the term bigot is being thrown around pretty liberally as well, which isn't nice either.
|
On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape.
Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion.
And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first.
|
On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences".
Is that a proper use of the term "deceiving" though? Say I really just enjoy wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks and I'm just out at the bar having a good time, when I hit it off with a girl and we decide to have sex later. Before having sex, do I have a moral obligation to say "hold on, actually I just want to make it clear that I just like wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks, I'm not actually rich," just in case she was only interested b/c it looked like I was wealthy?
|
On August 02 2013 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that. But that doesn't make you a rapist. The rapist point was in response to you arguing that only physical consequences matter and that you can do whatever you want with a person sexually as long as they don't know. That even if they would never consent to sex with a trans woman and you knew that it didn't matter that you knew that their consent was not informed consent and that they didn't actually want to have sex with you because "fuck that guy". As long as they weren't physically damaged by your withholding then no harm done, whatever their feelings of violation etc might be. What you said in that particular post was really rapey and rode roughshod over the principles of consent.
No. Rape can cause emotional damage as well. And I said several times if you knew they would never consent to sex with a trans person the trans person should back off. You're straw manning me here. We were talking about situations in which we weren't sure if the person would care or not. If you have no idea if the person cares or not, I don't think it's very pertinent information.
|
On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first.
So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them?
|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:04 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". Is that a proper use of the term "deceiving" though? Say I really just enjoy wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks and I'm just out at the bar having a good time, when I hit it off with a girl and we decide to have sex later. Before having sex, do I have a moral obligation to say "hold on, actually I just want to make it clear that I just like wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks, I'm not actually rich," just in case she was only interested b/c it looked like I was wealthy?
The answer depends upon the likelihood of her interest purely being because of your perceived wealth. For a lot of people sexual attraction is based on the perceived gender and they feel that perceived gender and actual gender are not the same in trans people. Whether or not you agree with them does not change the importance of the distinction they make with regard to consent.
|
On August 02 2013 02:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:50 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:48 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:46 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition. Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out. so is not disclosing being an asshole only untill it is reasonable to assume the person you are talking to is not a transphobe? yes do we all hope that happens one day? Ideally, but I'd like to be with someone who if she thinks X could conceivably impact my decision to consent will let me know because consent is super important to her. It's a principle which goes far beyond trans issues.
be with someone like relationship? or like one night stand?
"conceivably" seems a little loose. are we still using "reasonable to assume"?
its unfortunate that one is labeled asshole by someone striving for a society where what they did is socially acceptable.
Since you have now told me that you would not reject a trans woman for being trans and i conclusively know that it is not a deal breaker for you, would i still be obligated to tell you i was a trans person if i was and we were going to have sex?
|
as much as is don't like to agree with kwark, he's right on this one. althought its not probable to happen if you're not socially apt (meaning that you can't detect or differentiate, female behavior/personality and male behavior/personality that are much much different when it comes to "mating" or sexualy oriented convy). I work in a restaurant next to a trans bar, and its obvious unless they get shittons of plastic chirurgies.
question for kwark :
if at that point (having sex) you still don't know he's a trap then the blame is kind of on you for not detecting something strange?
how do you determine if the transgender guy/female intentionally omitted to tell you and that he didn't assume you knew at that point (let's say you have long enough chat equivalent to one it takes to bring a girl home)?
User was warned for this post
|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:00 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that. But that doesn't make you a rapist. The rapist point was in response to you arguing that only physical consequences matter and that you can do whatever you want with a person sexually as long as they don't know. That even if they would never consent to sex with a trans woman and you knew that it didn't matter that you knew that their consent was not informed consent and that they didn't actually want to have sex with you because "fuck that guy". As long as they weren't physically damaged by your withholding then no harm done, whatever their feelings of violation etc might be. What you said in that particular post was really rapey and rode roughshod over the principles of consent. No. Rape can cause emotional damage as well. And I said several times if you knew they would never consent to sex with a trans person the trans person should back off. You're straw manning me here. We were talking about situations in which we weren't sure if the person would care or not. If you have no idea if the person cares or not, I don't think it's very pertinent information.
Knowing that a large portion of the population do care and then willfully choosing to remain ignorant in the case of this individual is a shitty excuse. You don't get to know that the question is pertinent, then not ask it, then go "well I didn't know the answer". That's bullshit.
|
On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them?
If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me.
I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same.
|
On August 02 2013 03:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:00 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that. But that doesn't make you a rapist. The rapist point was in response to you arguing that only physical consequences matter and that you can do whatever you want with a person sexually as long as they don't know. That even if they would never consent to sex with a trans woman and you knew that it didn't matter that you knew that their consent was not informed consent and that they didn't actually want to have sex with you because "fuck that guy". As long as they weren't physically damaged by your withholding then no harm done, whatever their feelings of violation etc might be. What you said in that particular post was really rapey and rode roughshod over the principles of consent. No. Rape can cause emotional damage as well. And I said several times if you knew they would never consent to sex with a trans person the trans person should back off. You're straw manning me here. We were talking about situations in which we weren't sure if the person would care or not. If you have no idea if the person cares or not, I don't think it's very pertinent information. Knowing that a large portion of the population do care and then willfully choosing to remain ignorant in the case of this individual is a shitty excuse. You don't get to know that the question is pertinent, then not ask it, then go "well I didn't know the answer". That's bullshit.
I mean, you can bring up gay rights in conversation or even make up a story about how one of your "friends" is trans to gauge a reaction. If they react negatively, back off. If they don't react negatively cool, no reason to disclose because the question probably isn't pertinent.
|
On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand.
It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape.
|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:08 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:51 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:48 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:46 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition. Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out. so is not disclosing being an asshole only untill it is reasonable to assume the person you are talking to is not a transphobe? yes do we all hope that happens one day? Ideally, but I'd like to be with someone who if she thinks X could conceivably impact my decision to consent will let me know because consent is super important to her. It's a principle which goes far beyond trans issues. be with someone like relationship? or like one night stand? "conceivably" seems a little loose. are we still using "reasonable to assume"? its unfortunate that one is labeled asshole by someone striving for a society where what they did is socially acceptable. Since you have now told me that you would not reject a trans woman for being trans and i conclusively know that it is not a deal breaker for you, would i still be obligated to tell you i was a trans person if i was and we were going to have sex?
I don't one night stand really.
I am still using conceivably to mean reasonable to assume.
No, if we're having sex and you know that it's definitely not an issue for me because you follow my tl posts or whatever then you're not obligated to tell me because you don't need to find out my feelings on the matter and be considerate of them because you know my feelings on the matter. But if you did not know then I would want you to be considerate.
|
On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same.
And if you happen to with hold key information that might make them change their mind, then its totally fine if they are upset later on, just so long don't see it? But you shouldn't feel bad about it, because its all about you and fuck those people.
|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same.
This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female.
|
On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape.
lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans.
It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred.
And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole.
|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:10 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:08 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:00 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that. But that doesn't make you a rapist. The rapist point was in response to you arguing that only physical consequences matter and that you can do whatever you want with a person sexually as long as they don't know. That even if they would never consent to sex with a trans woman and you knew that it didn't matter that you knew that their consent was not informed consent and that they didn't actually want to have sex with you because "fuck that guy". As long as they weren't physically damaged by your withholding then no harm done, whatever their feelings of violation etc might be. What you said in that particular post was really rapey and rode roughshod over the principles of consent. No. Rape can cause emotional damage as well. And I said several times if you knew they would never consent to sex with a trans person the trans person should back off. You're straw manning me here. We were talking about situations in which we weren't sure if the person would care or not. If you have no idea if the person cares or not, I don't think it's very pertinent information. Knowing that a large portion of the population do care and then willfully choosing to remain ignorant in the case of this individual is a shitty excuse. You don't get to know that the question is pertinent, then not ask it, then go "well I didn't know the answer". That's bullshit. I mean, you can bring up gay rights in conversation or even make up a story about how one of your "friends" is trans to gauge a reaction. If they react negatively, back off. If they don't react negatively cool, no reason to disclose because the question probably isn't pertinent.
Or you can just go "I'm trans rather than cis, is that an issue for you?". Sure, cis people don't need to do that, that's majority privilege. But equally people with perfect sight don't get those awesome pet dogs. That's life.
|
On August 02 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter." Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female.
Is that any different than presenting yourself as affluent or, hell, prettier than you actually are by wearing nice clothes, hanging out in a dark bar, and buying expensive drinks? We all present ourselves as slightly different than we actually are when we try to get laid. Doesn't make it rape when the person then consents to have sex with us.
|
United States43728 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole.
Pretty sure having and enjoying sex with a guy (in their eyes) could conceivably cause trauma for someone who identifies as straight. It could definitely cause trauma if their friends found out and were the homophobic bullying type. You can't dismiss this shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
