Australia wants to make it illegal to have sex by lying to someone

[Bullseye]

Bingo.

View attachment 67267922
View attachment 67267923

These are great. :lamo

 

[Rich2018]

Don't people usually go to bars to get sex anyway? :lol:

No, you're thinking of brothels.

 

[Lisa]

Even the day after ..... revokable consent after the fact. No wonder men either go MGTOW or find women in Communist countries.

Why is it that some men cannot be honest in a relationship? These men sound like incels, so good riddance to them.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Don't people usually go to bars to get sex anyway? :lol:

Have you ever gone to a bar during daylight? Old people nursing beers, trying to sit upright on barstools and attempting to stay awake. Sex is the last thing on their minds.

Most people go to bars to drink, and drink when not alone. McSorley's the oldest operating bar in the US or at least NY, prohibited woman until they were sued under the Civil Rights Act for discrimination. I could never figure out why? The stench of stale beer, rotten cheese embedded in the unchanged for months sawdust on the floor couldn't be ignored until after the third whiskey. Now it is a cleaned up tourist trap where a once 35¢ draft beer is $8.

 

[maquiscat]

OK, so do you hold that same standard for women? If she rocks up in a cute designer dress that's obviously worth a lot of money, and the man asks if it's hers and she says it is (through intentional lie or just for the sake of simplicity, when in fact she borrowed it from a friend), should she be charged the day after with sex by deceit?

If a woman can withdraw her consent than a man can too. Your logic also acknowledges that it would be OK to charge women for wearing a bra that's clearly multiple sizes above their real breast size. Breasts have always been a tool for male attraction - that's why women have them in the first place. She shouldn't be allowed to openly lie about the size of hers to sleep with a man.

For the dress in and of itself, I doubt it. And same for any clothing of a man in and of itself. Even borrowed they are hers for the evening. Lord knows enough people extend themselves beyond their means for looks. The assumption of their income on your part is not a lie on their part. Now if they tell you they make 6 figures a year, you might have something.

As to breast size or penis size, if you ask and make it clear you have a minimum or maximum standard, and they make an intentional claim of other than the truth, then yes, because you made it clear that you would not sleep with them unless X was met. They decieved you.

And very much yes, a man can withdraw his consent. Anyone can withdraw their consent at anytime except after the fact. In the case of lies found after the fact, you are not withdrawing your consent, per se, but claiming that your consent was obtained under false pretenses.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Do you think we should start changing social norms to make it acceptable to ask women how many sexual partners they've had in the past year?

You been living under a rock? That already is becoming a norm. At the very least, you want to ask your potential partner when was the last time they were tested for STIs and the results. Knowing how many partner's they have had allows you to assess risk as well.

Most women right now would storm off and ignore any man who asks them that, but what you're suggesting is that it should be a normal part of the conversation

You are living in the past. Not that there are not still plenty of women who would do this, in this day and age, knowing your potential partner's history, at least to number and safety precautions taken, tests included, is a matter of protecting yourself. We teach this as a matter of course in both the BDSM and Poly communities, but it is becoming more wide spread even among the "vanillas".

and women should, in the interest of respecting the law, answer the question, even if they feel it violates their privacy.

There should never be a law requiring her to answer. If she doesn't want to reveal those things she shouldn't have to. He then decided if he wants to take that risk, but he will do so knowing there is an unknown factor. Now if she outright lies when asked and says she doesn't have an STI, that's grounds. But if asked and replies, "I don't wish to say", then she did not receive and should not be held accountable. This applies to men as well.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Hey you have a great point! Well he could ask her to go to a gynecologist and he would stand by him to observe.

And what could a OB/GYN prove? Or do you still cling to myths about the hymen?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[AProudLefty]

And what could a OB/GYN prove? Or do you still cling to myths about the hymen?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

What myths about the hymen?

 

[maquiscat]

What myths about the hymen?

That virginity is shown by an intact hymen. That seems to be implication behind your post. Or were you trying to be tounge in cheek?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[AProudLefty]

That virginity is shown by an intact hymen. That seems to be implication behind your post. Or were you trying to be tounge in cheek?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

The point was about proving 100% that a woman is virgin. I know that lack of hymen is not proof. I had a friend who "lost" her virginity riding a horse. (No pun intended. :shock

 

[Excast]

Why is it that some men cannot be honest in a relationship? These men sound like incels, so good riddance to them.

It's kind of crazy how widespread the whole incel thing has grown. Kind of a useful tactic for conservatives to help rebuild their ranks with young men though. Just teach socially awkward guys that the modern woman is responsible for all of their problems.

 

[Lisa]

It's kind of crazy how widespread the whole incel thing has grown. Kind of a useful tactic for conservatives to help rebuild their ranks with young men though. Just teach socially awkward guys that the modern woman is responsible for all of their problems.

If the GOP can't get them to blame foreigners, or jews you might as well blame women. They need someone to blame because they cannot possibly admit that they need to take reasonability for their own problems.

I had no idea what an incel was a year ago.

 

[Crusader13]

For the dress in and of itself, I doubt it. And same for any clothing of a man in and of itself. Even borrowed they are hers for the evening. Lord knows enough people extend themselves beyond their means for looks. The assumption of their income on your part is not a lie on their part. Now if they tell you they make 6 figures a year, you might have something.

As to breast size or penis size, if you ask and make it clear you have a minimum or maximum standard, and they make an intentional claim of other than the truth, then yes, because you made it clear that you would not sleep with them unless X was met. They decieved you.

And very much yes, a man can withdraw his consent. Anyone can withdraw their consent at anytime except after the fact. In the case of lies found after the fact, you are not withdrawing your consent, per se, but claiming that your consent was obtained under false pretenses.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

You've lost me...first of all a car is no different to a dress. If I borrow a Porsche from my rich friend, or rent it for the night, then for all intents and purposes it's mine for that period of time. Same as a dress. But just so we're clear - you're saying that unless the asks and makes it clear that Porsche ownership is a condition of our sex, the man cannot be charged?

In other words, if she finds out the day after sex that I'm in fact a deadbeat who doesn't have a job, I live in my mum's basement, and am beyond broke, she cannot claim she was deceived by me driving a Porsche unless she specifically asked.

The problem here is proof anyway. It's going to be impossible to prove what "she said" or "he said"

 

[maquiscat]

You've lost me...first of all a car is no different to a dress. If I borrow a Porsche from my rich friend, or rent it for the night, then for all intents and purposes it's mine for that period of time. Same as a dress. But just so we're clear - you're saying that unless the asks and makes it clear that Porsche ownership is a condition of our sex, the man cannot be charged?

At this point I am going to shift to "they" as it does not matter gender/sex.

If you have a limit for why you would or would not have sex with someone, then it is your responsibility to inform your potential partner. It is not their responsibility to try to guess what those limits are since the potential is so vast.

In other words, if she finds out the day after sex that I'm in fact a deadbeat who doesn't have a job, I live in my mum's basement, and am beyond broke, she cannot claim she was deceived by me driving a Porsche unless she specifically asked.

Yes. Her making an assumption does not automatically mean you were attempting to decieve her. Now if you just kept spinning out the story, and telling her of all the money you have and such, you then began actively decieving her.

The problem here is proof anyway. It's going to be impossible to prove what "she said" or "he said"

This problem currently exists in things like rape and sexual assault already. A girl can knowingly have AIDS and when asked by a guy what her last test results were, claim she was clean. Then when he takes her to court for assault, for assault it was, she can claim he never asked or that she told him the truth and he took the risk knowingly. The only thing this law would do is expand the point of consent to include active deception. The burden of proof would not change.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Crusader13]

Yes. Her making an assumption does not automatically mean you were attempting to decieve her. Now if you just kept spinning out the story, and telling her of all the money you have and such, you then began actively decieving her..

Right, but my issue is twofold:

Firstly, lying is subjective. The man can say he's rich because by his lowly middle-class standards, he considers himself well off because he has a job and a basic shelter. The woman grew up in royalty and automatically assumes that "rich" means mega billionaire. So the man wasn't lying, he just sees the world differently to the woman.

Same issue could arise if someone says they're gay, but only meant it in the traditional sense of being happy and bright. This is opening up a whole can of worms for non-locals who are not aware of local dialect and slang.

The other issue is that the woman shouldn't be allowed to claim to have been deceived unless she made it clear beforehand that she only sleeps with billionaires. In that case, the guy is in the wrong. But even if he tells fake stories about being rich, how do we know that those fake stories are what convinced the woman to sleep with him? She was likely convinced to sleep with him for other reasons - ie good looks, nice body, good at talking etc. The perceived wealth was likely only an accessory to her decision to sleep with him, not the deciding factor.

 

[maquiscat]

Right, but my issue is twofold:

Firstly, lying is subjective. The man can say he's rich because by his lowly middle-class standards, he considers himself well off because he has a job and a basic shelter. The woman grew up in royalty and automatically assumes that "rich" means mega billionaire. So the man wasn't lying, he just sees the world differently to the woman.

Valid concern, but since we are talking law, that means we need to deal in objectives. If the woman said rich, and she holds a higher standard to that words than he does, but says nothing then it's on her for not making it clear. However, is she says, "I won't sleep with anyone making less than $500,000/yr" and he claims he does, then it's on him for deceiving her. When her stated criteria was subjective he can't be held at fault, but when it is objective, he can.

Same issue could arise if someone says they're gay, but only meant it in the traditional sense of being happy and bright. This is opening up a whole can of worms for non-locals who are not aware of local dialect and slang.

A this is an example of why laws should never be so strict as to not allow for judges' descression. A judge should be allowed to determine that a lingual barrier caused a misunderstanding, as opposed to deliberate lying.

The other issue is that the woman shouldn't be allowed to claim to have been deceived unless she made it clear beforehand that she only sleeps with billionaires. In that case, the guy is in the wrong. But even if he tells fake stories about being rich, how do we know that those fake stories are what convinced the woman to sleep with him? She was likely convinced to sleep with him for other reasons - ie good looks, nice body, good at talking etc. The perceived wealth was likely only an accessory to her decision to sleep with him, not the deciding factor.

If someone makes an objectively measurable criteria as to a limit of theirs, then the other is at fault if they claim they meet the criteria even if they don't. The woman may have 5 separate criteria. If her potential partner only meets 4 of 5 but lies on the 5th, it is deception no matter how you slice it. If she on the other hand, when told he does not meet #5, decides to sleep with him anyway, she has consented to over look her own limit.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

Why is it that some men cannot be honest in a relationship?

Genetic programming mostly


They can't turn off the wish ti impregnate every attractive woman they see.


This even affects presidents.

 

[maquiscat]

Why is it that some men cannot be honest in a relationship? These men sound like incels, so good riddance to them.

I could ask that of some women as well.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

I could ask that of some women as well.

In women's case, its probably an unsatisfactory personal life.

 

[maquiscat]

In women's case, its probably an unsatisfactory personal life.

And that's a reason to be dishonest? And why would that not be a man's reason?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[SDET]

One characteristic of a dictatorship, including a feminist dictatorship is to instill fear. It is also meant to create a circumstance where every non-member of the ruling class is in a position to be prosecuted for a "crime". The idea is to construct a "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" environment. A man would be better off trying to live in an environment run by drug cartels.

 

[KevinKohler]

I doubt a jury would ever convict someone of rape for wearing cologne.

You ever smelled brut, when it's applied too heavy? Imagine...and in closed place...

 

[KevinKohler]

Why is it that some men cannot be honest in a relationship? These men sound like incels, so good riddance to them.

Why is it some women can't?

 

[KevinKohler]

What about lying about penis size?

 

[Phys251]

Why is it some women can't?

Nice whataboutism. :laughat: